Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 2 September).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

International Trade

The Secretary of State was asked—

Free Trade Agreement Negotiations: Business Engagement

Jamie Wallis: What steps her Department is taking to engage with businesses as part of free trade agreement negotiations.

Elizabeth Truss: This Government are committed to engaging business and farmers in our trade negotiations. Last Wednesday, I announced the creation of 11 new trade advisory groups to ensure that trade deals benefit the whole UK, from agriculture to the car industry.

Jamie Wallis: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. In my Bridgend constituency, the Ford factory is imminently to close and we hear that we may not be getting a much hoped for investment from Ineos, so our local economy is more dependent on small and medium-sized enterprises than ever before. What steps is her Department taking to engage with SMEs in particular to find out what they need as we negotiate free trade agreements with the rest of the world?

Elizabeth Truss: We have engaged with SMEs directly, and we are also working through organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce. What we are committed to is negotiating dedicated SME chapters in our trade agreements with the US, Australia, New Zealand and Japan to give our fantastic small businesses greater access to those markets.

Emily Thornberry: I am sorry not to be able to be in the Chamber in person. I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State is listening to British business, and I hope that she will listen to the millions of British workers and consumers who have an equal right to be heard when it comes to trade. With that in mind, may  I ask her a simple, factual question: of the 162 individuals that she announced last week will be members of her new trade advisory groups, will she tell us how many of them represent trade unions, consumer groups or non-governmental organisations?

Elizabeth Truss: The right hon. Lady will be very pleased to hear that we will shortly be announcing new groups—the strategic trade advisory group, as well as groups consulting civil society and the trade unions—and that is the way that we will engage those organisations in our trade negotiations. I have already had meetings with environmental groups and with trade unions, and I am committed to continuing to do that.

Emily Thornberry: The question really is: why do those groups really not merit being part of the trade advisory group, because of the 162 advisers that she has appointed, there is not a single person from a union, a consumer group or an NGO. Perhaps more important than anything else is that also excluded from the Secretary of State’s new advisory groups is the CBI, which previously sat on a group advising Ministers on continuity of trade for UK firms post Brexit—a group that has met nine times in the past year alone. Will the Secretary of State tell us why the CBI has been totally excluded, and why has the advisory group on continuity after Brexit now been totally disbanded?

Elizabeth Truss: We are reformulating the new strategic advisory group, which will contain some large business representative organisations alongside civil society groups, and we will be announcing that in due course. None the less, there is a difference between the detailed consultation that we need to undergo on the specifics of trade negotiation—for example, rules of origin for specific industries—and then the broader strategic advice on our trade policy. It is right that we are consulting the trade unions, the environmental groups and organisations such as the CBI on that broader strategy as well, and we will be announcing that in due course. The hon. Lady will not have to wait much longer.

Free Trade Agreement Negotiations: Food and Farming

James Grundy: What steps her Department is taking to engage with the food and farming sector as part of free trade agreement negotiations.

Elizabeth Truss: We have established an agrifood trade advisory group to ensure that farmers and food producers are involved in the details of our negotiations. We have also launched the Trade and Agriculture Commission to advise and inform on agriculture, trade policies and export opportunities for UK farmers.

James Grundy: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, contrary to persistent rumours in the media, chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef will not be on our supermarket shelves post Brexit?

Elizabeth Truss: I can confirm that, as part of the EU withdrawal Act, the ban in place on chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef remains after we leave the transition period on 1 January 2021.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are now going up to see the spokesperson for the SNP, Angus Brendan MacNeil.

Angus MacNeil: Chairman of the Select Committee, Mr Speaker.
We are either facing a hard Brexit or a no-deal Brexit and, as a result, food and farming have taken on really great importance. It is an issue that has caused near meltdown for the new and already failing Tory leaders in Scotland, with the National Farmers Union, Scotland, giving them the yellow card for being misleading and leaving farmers fuming. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to ease farmers’ anger and consumers’ anxiety and state categorically that there will be no changing of food standards or any compromise whatsoever in any trade deal on the high standards of the food that now goes on our supermarket shelves?

Elizabeth Truss: I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and I point out that NFU Scotland sits as part of our Trade and Agriculture Commission, looking at future trade policy.

Bill Esterson: NFU Scotland is not just fuming: it is telling us that that the leader of the Scottish Conservatives is misrepresenting its position. The reality is that the Scottish NFU is clear in its view that it wants the Trade Bill amended to ban food imports not produced to UK standards. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she is at least listening to NFU Scotland, even if she does not agree with it, and will she tell the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) to give a true account of the NFU’s views?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) is a huge champion of Scottish farming and the Scotch whisky industry, and I am working extremely closely with him. I am also working very closely with NFU Scotland, and it is involved in the Trade and Agriculture Commission. The fundamental principle of our trade policy is that we will not allow our fantastic farmers, whether in Scotland, Wales, Wales or Northern Ireland, and their great produce to be undermined. What we want them to be doing is exporting more around the world.

Stewart Hosie: During the passage of the Trade Bill, farmers via the NFU and others, including doctors via the British Medical Association, expressed deep concerns that food standards in future trade deals could be under threat, allowing in, for example, vegetables from the US, where 72 chemicals are allowed that are currently banned in the UK. Given that the Government refused to legislate in the Trade Bill to stop the lowering of standards, how will the Secretary of State respond in her engagement with farmers to ensure that that will not happen in future?

Elizabeth Truss: In the EU withdrawal Act, all the import standards that we had as part of the EU have been transposed into UK law. Those import standards remain, and we will not be negotiating them away in any trade agreement. Furthermore, we have the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which is specifically involving organisations such as NFU Scotland, to ensure that British farmers get a fair deal and British consumers have products that they can have confidence in.

Stewart Hosie: All that answer confirms is that there are no legislative protections in the Trade Bill and that MPs will have no say in any future trade deal except for potentially a “take it or leave it” choice after the negotiations are concluded. Given that Which? tells us that 95% of the public want to maintain current food standards, why do this Government continue to rule out real legislative protections in a trade Bill that would accord with the views of our farmers, our doctors and the general public?

Elizabeth Truss: These standards, such as the ban on chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, are already in UK law as part of the EU withdrawal Act. I have been explicit: it is not a matter for trade policy; it is a matter for our domestic law what standards we have in this country, and we are not trading it away, so it should not be part of any trade Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) speaks from a sedentary position. I do not think that it is the Government’s job to legislate twice for things that are already in legislation.

Alison Thewliss: The standards governing infant formula in the UK are far higher than those in the US. Will the Secretary of State take steps to protect our youngest citizens from the additional sugars and colourants permitted in the United States but banned here?

Elizabeth Truss: Any product that is sold in the UK has to be subject to the rules of the UK. Those standards are set by Food Standards Scotland and the Food Standards Agency in England and Wales, and those rules will not be changed as part of any trade deal with anyone, whether the US, Australia, New Zealand or Japan.

UK Exporters: Covid-19

David Simmonds: What steps her Department is taking to support UK exporters to help the economy recover from the covid-19 pandemic.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of exporters to the country’s economic recovery from covid. My Department is working closely with business to develop a new export strategy, deliver bounce-back plans for key sectors, sign free trade agreements with countries covering 80% of our trade, strengthen our regional teams to level up exporting success and challenge market access barriers whenever and wherever in the world they are found.

David Simmonds: The many exporters in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner are grateful for the support from Government. Will my hon. Friend outline the measures that UK Export Finance is taking in particular to support export businesses with their recovery?

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting UK Export Finance. It had its 100th anniversary last year and it is repeatedly voted the best export finance agency in the world. It has a range of products and trade experts across the four UK nations and in key locations globally—we have increased  that number—making it ideally positioned to support UK exporters and their overseas customers during the pandemic. UKEF, as well as having an established and successful roster of products, is addressing the emerging needs of UK exporters and has come forward with new products, most notably recently the export development guarantee, which provides general working capital and capex to support the operations of eligible exporters, following a successful pilot. I am delighted to say that UKEF has so far provided EDG support to both Jaguar Land Rover and Ford Britain worth £500 million each, and more is in the pipeline, not least for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Paul Blomfield: The Minister will know that businesses are concerned about the double disruption of covid and the end of the Brexit transition. The Government said that they would secure the rollover deals we need to replace those we enjoyed with more than 40 countries and trade blocs as members of the EU. Failure will leave business with increased costs, barriers and red tape, but in the last four years the Department has concluded just half the agreements it wants and not a single one since the start of this year. Will the Minister tell the House not how many are in discussion but how many will be secured in the remaining four months?

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he knows, the vast majority of the trade covered by those deals has already been secured in existing deals. Work continues and I am delighted to say that we continue to talk to those countries, as well as, as the original question suggested, supporting exporters, not least Edwin Jagger Limited, for instance, in his own constituency. That company is of particular note and could be of use to him, because it specialises in wet shaving and grooming. If it is good enough for the Chinese and the Americans, I suggest he that gets around to his local supplier.

Lindsay Hoyle: Question 12 has been withdrawn.

Environmental Protection Standards: Future Trade Agreements

Catherine West: What discussions she has had with UK trade partners on maintaining environmental protection standards in future trade agreements.

Jeff Smith: What discussions she has had with UK trade partners on maintaining environmental protection standards in future trade agreements.

Greg Hands: The Government are committed to meeting their ambitious environmental objectives. We are exploring environmental provisions in the design of our free trade agreements to ensure we continue to uphold the UK’s very high environmental standards. The precise details of each individual UK free trade agreement are a matter for the formal negotiations.

Catherine West: As we can see from the Extinction Rebellion protestors outside Parliament today and from our own inboxes as MPs, people hold environmental  standards very close to their hearts. High climate standards are put at risk by leaving the European Union, which has the gold standard on environmental protections. What will the Government do, whether abroad with a country like Brazil or here in the UK, to protect the climate? The climate does cross borders so, whether at home or abroad, what steps will the Government take, with some energy, to protect the environment?

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Lady for that question, which I think was very reasonably put, but actually we are doing a huge amount right the way across the board. We guaranteed in our manifesto no compromise on environmental standards in our future free trade agreements. The UK global tariff, which we published earlier this year, goes significantly further than the EU’s common external tariff in making sure that environmental goods are low-tariff or tariff-free. There are 104 tariff lines, including steam turbines, vacuum flasks and thermostats. We are also providing export finance in areas of renewable energy, such as solar energy and wind farms in Taiwan.

Jeff Smith: The former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, said that the major role he played in his country’s trade negotiations was ensuring
“that we weren’t sidetracked by peripheral issues such as… environmental standards”.
Does his potential appointment as a policy adviser to the Board of Trade mean that that is the Government’s new approach? How can the Government reassure us that they do not now regard the environment as a peripheral issue?

Greg Hands: The Government’s approach on the environment, and on the environment and trade, is unchanged. No appointments have been confirmed. Personally, I welcome the fact that a former Prime Minister of Australia is willing to help this country out. I think we should welcome his interest and welcome the endeavours he has the potential to make for this country on behalf of us all.

Bill Esterson: Palm oil production is having a devastating impact on wildlife and the environment in a number of countries, including Malaysia, and there is real concern among our constituents about the threat to orangutans. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will press ahead with a ban on palm oil imports after the end of the transition period? Will he also confirm that this Government will maintain that ban if we join Malaysia in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership?

Greg Hands: The hon. Gentleman will remember the Prime Minister’s visit to Thailand and the region, and his speaking out about wildlife crime in that region when he was Foreign Secretary, including in relation to the pangolin, for example. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that the UK first published its statement on the sustainable production of palm oil in 2012, and the latest reports indicate that the UK achieved 75% certified sustainable palm oil importation in 2017, which compares with a figure of just 10% under the last Labour Government. We have taken the figure from just 10% to 75% in just 10 years.

Trade with the Indian Subcontinent

Mark Logan: What steps her Department is taking to facilitate trade with the Indian subcontinent.

Ranil Jayawardena: My Department continues to promote increased trade with the subcontinent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I recently took part in the 14th annual UK-India JETCO—Joint Economic Trade Committee—during which we set a more ambitious trajectory for an enhanced trade partnership. Through our independent trade preferences scheme, we are strengthening our trading relationships with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh too, but our stronger trade ties are already delivering advantages for British businesses. I hope my hon. Friend will excuse a reference from across the Pennines, as I am pleased to announce today that Britain can now export polyhalite to India—it is an organic fertiliser mined in Yorkshire.

Mark Logan: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for his first questions, on his birthday—congratulations. Bolton-born company Vernacare has big international demand for its infection control products used in hospitals. However, such companies face inflated import duties when trading. Exporting to India is proving cost- prohibitive for some businesses, so does he agree that through increasing co-operation with India we will be able to explore the reduction of import duties and thus bear a bountiful boost for businesses in Bolton?

Ranil Jayawardena: My hon. Friend is right to say that we can go much further, and increasing bilateral trade and investment with India will benefit both Indian and British businesses, and, of course, our peoples. Here at home this work will support businesses located in every corner of the country, including Vernacare, in his constituency. It is just one example of a company that my Department has worked with to achieve significant success in India already, including agreeing a five-year supply deal with Manipal, one of Asia’s largest healthcare management groups

Gareth Thomas: Although the growth in trade, particularly in services, with India is good news, the UK’s trade in goods with India increased by just 5% in the past five years, while the rest of the G7 all saw double-digit growth, with the US and France seeing increases of almost 40%. There is not a UK trade envoy with India, and the Select Committee thinks that visa restrictions are holding Britain back. Why does the Minister think other G7 countries are doing so much better on trade in goods with India?

Ranil Jayawardena: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has joined the party in welcoming the fact that we will take back control of our trade policy. We will now have the chance to shape our relationship with India, which we have not had in the past. This Government have already delivered value to British businesses worth £250 million a year, based on industry’s own estimates, through unlocking exports of spirits, oats, pigs for breeding, poultry and lamb to India.

International Trade: Covid-19

Felicity Buchan: What steps her Department is taking to help international trade recover from the covid-19 pandemic.

Ranil Jayawardena: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Covid has threatened global trade and exacerbated protectionism. Our ambitious free trade agreements—with the United States, Japan, New Zealand and Australia—will not only help Britain bounce back by boosting trade but secure greater choice for consumers here by opening up and liberalising international markets. For example, increasing transatlantic trade could add £3.4 billion to the British economy; and the value of our exports to our friends down under could increase by around £1 billion through the deals we are striving for.

Felicity Buchan: We have seen increasing trade tensions over the course of the last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to avoid an escalation of trade tensions?

Ranil Jayawardena: My hon. Friend is right. There are no winners in a trade war. We will continue to shine as a beacon for free trade in the world, illuminating and toppling trade barriers through free trade agreements, boosting British influence at the G7, the G20 and the World Trade Organisation, and keeping free and fair trade at the heart of all that we do.

Daniel Zeichner: One of our great trade and export success stories in the tech sector is Cambridge-based Arm, the tech giant that designs the chip that goes into almost every mobile phone in the world. During the covid crisis, it has been subject to the threat of sale to an aggressive American manufacturer. What is the Government’s response? What discussions is the Minister having with colleagues to ensure that this jewel in our tech crown is not dismembered?

Ranil Jayawardena: Arm is a very successful business, and I have regular conversations with colleagues in a number of Departments. The most important thing is that we ensure the environment in the UK is one in which all sorts of businesses want to work and, of course, that we preserve our national security.

Tariffs on UK Exports

Kieran Mullan: What recent steps she has taken to reduce tariffs on UK exports.

Jacob Young: What recent steps she has taken to reduce tariffs on UK exports.

Elizabeth Truss: We have been pushing hard to remove tariffs in all our trade agreements in order to benefit UK consumers and business, whether the 28% tariff on dinner plates to the US, Japanese tariffs on footwear or the 8% tariff on Tim Tams with Australia.

Kieran Mullan: I am proud to say that since 1962 Crewe has been home to Whitby Morrison, a family-owned ice cream van manufacturer recognised as a world leader. It exports its vans to more than 60 countries worldwide, but it still faces considerable trade barriers. Will the Secretary of State assure me that in trade talks with Japan, the US, Australia and other countries, ice cream vans are on the list so that we can back this great British export?

Elizabeth Truss: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his championing of this fantastic ice cream van business. Such vans are indeed a great export and currently face tariffs of up to 5% with some of our negotiating partners. We will certainly be looking at removing those tariffs as well as other tariffs as part of the trade deals we are looking to strike.

Jacob Young: The proposed UK global tariffs stand to negatively affect polyethylene terephthalate resin manufacturing in Teesside, which delivers more than 70% of the UK’s PET packaging for critical applications such as food and pharmaceuticals as well as personal protective equipment. The survival of Alpek, the UK’s only producer of PET, is threatened by most favoured nation tariffs on its two main raw materials, despite the fact that there is no domestic production of them. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Alpek in my constituency to hear of the effect those tariffs could have and consider a different direction?

Elizabeth Truss: Last week, I visited a number of manufacturing businesses in the north-east, which is a manufacturing powerhouse. My hon. Friend is a huge champion of the industry in his area in Teesside, from chemicals to steel. I would be delighted to meet him and the company to see what can be done to help address its issues.

Exports to Non-EU Countries

Shaun Bailey: What steps her Department is taking to help businesses increase exports to non-EU countries.

Graham Stuart: It is noticeable that, unlike the Opposition, my hon. Friend champions business, champions the UK’s independent trade policy and thus champions the livelihoods of midlands workers. Ninety per cent of global growth is expected to be outside Europe over the next years and we are doing everything we can to support firms, not least in West Bromwich, to start or grow exports whether through signing trade deals, developing a new export strategy or boosting our on the ground network of international trade advisers.

Shaun Bailey: It is clear that, with £3.8 billion-worth of exports, the Black Country is, as I have always said, the workshop of the United Kingdom. What work is my hon. Friend doing with local stakeholders, including our west midlands Mayor, Andy Street, to ensure that around the world people will once again see the words “Made in the Black Country”?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Working with partners in an increasingly devolved United Kingdom is so important to delivering the export success  that all of us, at least on Government side of the House, crave. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Andy Street extremely recently to discuss our programme of FTAs and the benefits they can bring to the region, and we will continue to support businesses across the midlands—not least Westfield Sports Cars in Kingswinford, near my hon. Friend’s constituency, which is exploring new opportunities in places like the US, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

US Trade Agreement Negotiations

Mark Hendrick: What progress the Government have made with negotiations on a trade agreement with the US.

Greg Hands: The third negotiating round of the UK-US free trade agreement took place from 27 July to 7 August 2020. I can announce today that the next round will start next Tuesday— 8 September. In parallel with the negotiations, my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary held a series of meetings in early August with the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Robert Lighthizer.

Mark Hendrick: Given the impending failure of the Prime Minister’s fictitious oven-ready deal with the EU, how much leverage, or lack of leverage, will that failure give the Secretary of State in her negotiating position with whichever candidate wins the US November presidential elections, and what impact will that have on a UK economy already battered by covid-19 and a no-deal Brexit?

Greg Hands: The hon. Gentleman started off with a bit of a misnomer. Let me report from the most recent round of negotiations with the EU: our negotiator reported that these talks were part of the intensified process; they had had good talks around the Court of Justice and the EU’s concerns about the complex Switzerland-style set of agreements, and so on. So actually that was quite a positive round.
In terms of the US, clearly we keep channels of communication open—we talk with all parts of the US political system. We make sure that Senators, Members of Congress and Governors, from both parties and throughout the United States, buy into a future UK-US free trade agreement.

CPTPP

Chris Green: What recent discussions she has had with her international counterparts on the UK joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Heather Wheeler: What recent discussions she has had with her international counterparts on the UK joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Greg Hands: We have taken strong steps towards joining the CPTPP through engaging with all 11 member countries on UK accession to the CPTPP. In July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary  of State chaired an event with all CPTPP Heads of Mission in London, and next week she will join a CPTPP meeting chaired by Mexico.

Chris Green: Indespension, at the heart of my constituency, manufactures top-quality trailers, whether for motorbiking, camping or for transporting a mechanical digger, so I am sure my right hon. Friend would have them as his No. 1 choice. In the name of equal opportunities, should not everyone around the world have that opportunity as well?

Greg Hands: I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for promoting the UK’s manufacturing exports around the world. He will be interested to know that north-west business goods exports to CPTPP countries were worth over £2 billion in 2019, and road vehicles were the top export within that, at £333 million. So I am sure that manufacturing exports from Bolton will have a fantastic future, with his support and that of this Department.

Heather Wheeler: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answers so far. Next door to the CPTPP grouping area is Taiwan. Could the Minister provide an update on the UK’s trade relationship with Taiwan?

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I take a very strong interest in our superb bilateral trade relationship with Taiwan, which has actually provided a lot of assistance to the United Kingdom during the pandemic. This autumn we will hold our annual trade talks with my Taiwanese counterpart, with whom I first engaged in such talks in 2016.
Like us, Taiwan, through its membership of the World Trade Organisation, is committed to the same values of free trade and free markets as we are, and we look forward to deepening our relationship with Taiwan in the coming trade talks.

Free Trade Agreements

Marco Longhi: What assessment she has made of the potential merits of free trade agreements with countries other than the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Ranil Jayawardena: For the first time in almost 50 years, we are able to determine our own trade policy, and there is much interest in the potential of a free trade agreement with Britain from our partners around the globe. We will weigh up a multitude of considerations and we will be looking closely at the progress we make on market access improvements in the months ahead.
While we remain open to taking forward negotiations with a number of global partners, we have already had productive discussions on how to enhance our trading relationship with the Government of India, as I detailed earlier, with the Gulf Co-operation Council, and with the Southern Common Market, known as Mercosur.

Marco Longhi: Having lived and worked in South America for five years, I am aware of the huge untapped potential that countries on that continent can offer, particularly for our high-tech manufacturing bases in  Dudley and in the Black Country, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) mentioned. Will my hon. Friend update the House on any discussions to open up these markets and opportunities offered by a post-Brexit Britain?

Ranil Jayawardena: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the untapped potential of South American markets. Britain used to do more in this part of the world, so my Department is working to reignite those trading relationships through regular ministerial discussions, including with Brazil, to open up opportunities for trade. We have already secured a number of free trade agreements to ensure continuity of access for British businesses, and we are interested in further opportunities to deepen these relationships in the region, including through Mercosur.

Food and Farming Sector: Covid-19

Kevin Hollinrake: What steps her Department is taking to help the food and farming sector recover from the covid-19 pandemic.

Steve Double: What steps her Department is taking to help the food and farming sector recover from the covid-19 pandemic.

Jerome Mayhew: What steps her Department is taking to help the food and farming sector recover from the covid-19 pandemic.

Graham Stuart: The agriculture, food and drink sector is the UK’s largest manufacturing industry and supports about 4 million jobs. With exports worth £23.8 billion last year, we are determined to see this success continue. So on 22 June, alongside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and business, I was delighted to launch an agriculture, food and drink bounce-back plan to drive exports and recovery from covid.

Kevin Hollinrake: My father was a hill farmer, so it was a pleasure to meet a group of hill farmers in Bilsdale in my constituency, together with British Wool, which tells me that farm-gate prices for fleeces are down by 90% this year—so farmers are better off burning them than transporting them. Will British wool feature in a future free trade agreement?

Graham Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend, who stands up for Yorkshire farmers whether of sheep or other products. This Government will stand firm in trade negotiations, and we will always do right by our farmers and aim to secure new opportunities for the industry. We are also engaging with stakeholders such as the National Sheep Association through the agri-food trade advisory group. During our negotiations, DIT is also supporting interiors and apparel textiles manufacturers who use British wool at leading international trade fairs such as Heimtextil.

Steve Double: Cornwall is proud to produce some of the finest and most sought-after food and drink, but the sector has been hit hard as a result of the pandemic.  Will the Minister lay out how food producers in Cornwall, and indeed around the country, will benefit from the agri-food bounce-back package that he mentioned?

Graham Stuart: The bounce-back package, as I say, was launched in June. It facilitates additional access for small businesses’ products to UK Export Finance. It launched a suite of export masterclasses and webinars to overcome some of the lack of understanding of opportunities in foreign markets and of the challenges that are faced in entering them. It will further boost our trade efforts ahead of new opportunities that will also be presented by our FTAs.
Already, a series of over 20 agri-food export masterclasses targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises has been delivered, and that programme will continue throughout this year. My Department is working, through our international trade adviser network, to support my hon. Friend’s local Cornish food and drink companies to access virtual meet-the-buyer events and UKAP—United Kingdom agricultural policy—webinars, which will be launched in the autumn and come out of the plan that we worked with industry to create.

Jerome Mayhew: We all recognise that a free trade agreement with the United States of America has enormous potential to benefit UK farming, not least by opening up a market of 328 million potential customers, but it does come with some risks, not least the potential import of clinically safe but lower food standard meat products. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what success he is having in maximising the benefits and minimising those risks?

Graham Stuart: As the Secretary of State has made clear—sufficiently slowly, I hope, for the Scottish National party spokesman—all existing food standards are enshrined in UK law and no trade deal will be able to change that legal position. I can assure my hon. Friend that those standards will be maintained, and I hope that his constituents are not alarmed by the consistent scare- mongering from Opposition parties.
I am delighted to say that we will see beef shipping to the United States imminently. It is worth noting that at the moment there are no lamb sales into the US, which is the second largest importer of lamb in the world. These are the prizes that we are after; these are the prizes that we are delivering.

UK-Japan Trade and Investment Priorities

Stephen Flynn: What progress she made on the Government’s trade and investment priorities during recent discussions with her Japanese counterpart.

Neale Hanvey: What progress she made on the Government’s trade and investment priorities during recent discussions with her Japanese counterpart.

Graham Stuart: Direct talks on the UK-Japan FTA between Japanese Foreign Minister Motegi and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took place  on 6 and 7 August, and I am pleased to say that they reached consensus on the major elements. We are in the final stage of negotiations and are optimistic about reaching an agreement in the coming weeks. Both sides are committed to a deal coming into force by the end of this year.

Stephen Flynn: The UK’s own forecasts indicate that a trade deal with Japan will be worth a whopping 0.07% of GDP growth in the long term. In the meantime, leaving the EU single market and customs union will impact GDP growth by 5%. We know that the EU has a trade deal with Japan, so can the Minister explain to viewers in Scotland, who voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, why those figures are such a positive thing?

Graham Stuart: The benefit of trade deals is that they reduce the barriers to trade. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the EU-Japan trade deal has only recently come into force. I am delighted to say that the model deal that we are looking to secure with Japan is more ambitious; it goes further, not least on digital and data aspects, which will be tremendously important to the growing and strengthening tech scene in Scotland and beyond.

Neale Hanvey: As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) just mentioned, Japan accounts for around 2% of the UK’s total exports. The EU is worth more than 20 times that and already has a trade deal with Japan. With many talks stalling, the UK is on track for a slew of bad deals, or simply no deal at all. Is it not now time for the Government, given their summer of U-turns on the covid crisis, to admit that their Brexit bluff has been called and urgently review this, in the light of the impact that disruption to trade, jobs and livelihoods, and the UK’s covid recovery, will have?

Graham Stuart: I do not know who wrote the hon. Gentleman’s question, but it is clear that they are hanging on desperately to the idea that there should be a failure. Overwhelmingly, the continuity agreements have been rolled over. We have opportunities, not least with Japan, to go further and have a more ambitious programme, as well as to set new standards through deals with Australia, New Zealand and the United States.
It is noticeable that in all the years that the EU has been in charge of our trade policy, it has never signed an FTA with the world’s largest economy, let alone the next largest economies in the world. The truth is that it is dawning on the hon. Gentleman and his separatist, schismatic colleagues that they are going to see not a failure of our trade policy but a success.

Free Trade Agreement Negotiations with Australia

Ian Paisley Jnr: What progress she has made on free trade agreement negotiations with Australia.

Greg Hands: Trade negotiators from the UK and Australia held the first round of negotiations for a UK-Australia free trade agreement between 29 June and 10 July. Round 1 saw a full and productive discussion covering most aspects of what might be included in a comprehensive free trade agreement. The second round will start on 21 September.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Minister for that answer. He knows that the high commissioner from Australia House, George Brandis, has been engaged in very extended talks with parties in Northern Ireland to encourage businesses there to look for growth opportunities with Australia. How do the Government intend to extend the opportunities in a trade agreement to businesses in Northern Ireland so that they can flourish under this free trade agreement?

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Member for that question. First, I commend the Australian high commissioner, who really does an excellent job right the way across the United Kingdom in promoting the benefits of this deal. We have been clear from the very beginning that UK free trade agreements will benefit Northern Ireland. Yesterday, I was speaking to Bushmills in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and talking to Colum Egan about Irish whiskey, particularly with reference to the Australia free trade agreement, including what we can do on rules of origin and on seeking to remove the current 5% tariff on both Irish whiskey and Scotch whisky going into Australia. I am sure that we can continue to do more work to make sure that Northern Ireland continues to benefit from the UK free trade agenda.

Topical Questions

Sheryll Murray: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Elizabeth Truss: We are making good progress on negotiations with the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and on accession to the CPTPP. We are also intensifying our negotiations with Australia. We want a gold standard deal that pushes new frontiers in trade and advances British interests in vital areas such as financial services, telecoms, tech, and food and drink. We want to work with like-minded friends and allies who believe in free trade and fair play.

Sheryll Murray: Cornwall prides itself on its excellent food and drink produce. Will my right hon. Friend please promote this fantastic Cornish and British produce during her trade negotiations around the world?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is right. Cornwall is renowned for its fantastic food from clotted cream to the Cornish pasty. I am going to be in Cornwall in a couple of weeks’ time, visiting the Saputo creamery, which exports Cathedral City to the United States—there is currently a 26% tariff on that cheese, which I am seeking to get removed—and I would be delighted to visit her in her constituency and see some of her great food businesses as well.

David Linden: Yesterday, I met Beam Suntory and the Scotch Whisky Association to hear about the crippling impact that tariffs are having on the Scotch Malt Whisky Society. The Secretary of State said in her article in :
“The Government is stepping up talks with the US to try and break the impasse, and will be entering into further discussions with her opposite number”.
Can she give us an update on how that is going and, more importantly, tell us when we are going to call time on tariffs?

Elizabeth Truss: We have made some progress in that we have stopped new tariffs being imposed on blended whisky. We have also got the tariffs removed on shortbread, such as Walkers, which has helped protect 250 jobs. However, the reality is that the EU has been responsible for negotiating the Airbus retaliatory tariffs; it has failed to do so, and that is why I have entered direct talks with the United States. I will be having more talks in the coming months to get these unfair, unjust tariffs removed on single malt whisky.

Jason McCartney: During the lockdown and local restrictions, my constituents have really embraced shopping local and really supporting quality local food and drink products. What reassurances can the Minister please give me and my constituents that, while we do these trade deals, we really will not compromise our high food standards and our animal welfare standards?

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is worth reminding ourselves that he and I were both elected in December on a strong programme of no compromise on our standards on the environment, animal welfare and food safety—he and I collectively and individually. That is in the manifesto, and it has been made in repeated statements by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the International Trade and the whole DIT team.

Simon Jupp: Recently, I welcomed the Minister to East Devon to visit a dairy farm to discuss the opportunities ahead to export a wide variety of world-renowned produce from my home county. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give our farmers in Devon that their produce will be promoted and protected by this Government?

Ranil Jayawardena: They say it never rains in East Devon when in the company of my hon. Friend, which was certainly true on my great visit to his constituency. We met a huge number of great businesses and landowners who look after our countryside and curate it for the next generation. We will never sign a trade deal that compromises Britain’s high environmental protections or animal welfare and food safety standards. Indeed, I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to promote our excellent British produce overseas through agriculture, food and drink bounce-back plans.

Afzal Khan: As we speak, Palestinian communities remain at risk of forcible transfer as a result of Israeli annexation. The UK prohibited all trade from Crimea after Russia’s illegal occupation and annexation in 2014, and we should follow that precedent when it comes to illegal settlements. Has the International Trade Secretary had discussions with her Israeli counterpart over the illegal annexation, and will she reconsider UK trade deals with settlement territories?

Elizabeth Truss: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was recently in Israel talking about our close relationship with that important ally.

Desmond Swayne: Would the Secretary of State even dream of doing a trade deal without the support of the House?

Elizabeth Truss: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; I would always seek the support not only of the House but of people across the United Kingdom, because we want every single trade deal we sign to benefit our businesses, our consumers and our country. However, if some doubtful people on the Opposition Benches do not believe me, there is protection, because under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 system any trade deal can be blocked by this House. Of course, I would never consider putting forward a trade deal that would not command the support of the House, but there is always that protection for those doubting Thomases on the Opposition Benches.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Will the Secretary of State get off the platform? We want to get through the list.

Ruth Cadbury: The Minister said that he welcomed the Government’s appointment of Tony Abbott as a trade adviser, but on Sky this morning, Kay Burley reminded the Health Secretary that the appointee is a misogynist and homo- phobe, which the International Trade Secretary’s colleague appeared to confirm by saying, “But he’s also an expert on trade.” Could the International Trade Secretary not find an expert for the role who demonstrates positive British values and, by the way, is not a climate change denier?

Elizabeth Truss: I think it is absolute hypocrisy to hear that type of argument from the Labour party. Until recently, they had a shadow Chancellor, whom the hon. Lady supported, who called for the lynching of one of my female colleagues and never apologised. Labour has never elected a female leader, despite having the opportunity time and again. The reality is that they would rather virtue-signal and indulge in tokenism than take real action to improve the lives of women.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think we ought to remember that we are dealing with international trade questions. That goes for Members on both sides of the House.

Flick Drummond: I start by expressing my sadness and sympathies over the death of India’s former President, Pranab Mukherjee, earlier this week. India is the world’s second largest importer of arms, but although the UK has a superb defence and security industry, including companies such as Domo Tactical Communications in my constituency, India is not one of our major markets. What more can be done to export to, and strengthen defence ties with, the largest of our Commonwealth allies?

Ranil Jayawardena: I am sure the whole House will join my hon. Friend in sending sympathies. We are ramping up defence engagement. We supported Britain’s largest ever delegation to the Indian defence expo in February this year, including 160 British business leaders. India  increasingly prefers to contract defence and security deals via Government-to-Government frameworks, so we are leading that cross-government work to enable British businesses to do more in the future.

Tony Lloyd: Environmental protections do work in bilateral trade agreements, but they work best when the process is genuinely internationalised. Will Ministers tell the House and the country what steps are being taken in the preparations for COP26 to make sure that international trade with strong environmental protections is a major item, to ensure that we can save the planet?

Elizabeth Truss: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. As we take up our independent seat at the World Trade Organisation we intend, alongside pushing our agenda on technology and services, to work with like-minded partners on the environment to get strong environmental agreement alongside our work on COP26.

Chris Loder: In my constituency of West Dorset, 97% of businesses are small or micro-sized. Will the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to make sure that those small and micro-sized businesses will benefit from the many trade deals we are going to sign?

Graham Stuart: We will use our new FTAs precisely to support the priority asks of UK small and microbusinesses that export goods and services around the world, including increased transparency on rules and regulations; international co-operation to support SMEs; and the securing of FTAs that benefit the whole UK economy, not just the largest players.

Chris Matheson: The appointment of the sexist and homophobic Tony Abbott is also the appointment of a climate change denier. Does that indicate that the Government are moving away from any commitment in trade deals to maintaining environmental protection? If not, why have they put him in the job?

Elizabeth Truss: The reality is that those on the left of politics are always intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them but are prepared to defend anything from their own friends, such as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). When is the hon. Gentleman going to condemn the right hon. Gentleman’s call to lynch one of my female colleagues?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have to remember that we actually answer questions, rather than keep asking them.
I call Matt Vickers. Not here.

Christine Jardine: We have heard warm words today from the Government Benches about cheese and the food and drink industry, yet we need reassurances in Scotland more than just warm words about trade deals. The Scotch whisky industry has lost a third of its exports to the United States since the 25% tariff was introduced. What are the Government actually doing to support the industry, which is vital not only to my constituency but to just about every constituency in Scotland?

Elizabeth Truss: The answer is that I am in direct talks with the US about dealing with this issue, following the failure of the EU, which the hon. Lady wants to rejoin, to do anything about it for 15 years.

Kevin Hollinrake: Neonicotinoids are banned in the UK as seed dressing for sugar beet growers or for oilseed rape, but they are allowed in other countries, including some in the EU, putting their producers at a natural advantage over our producers. Will advantages of that kind be eliminated in a future free trade agreement?

Elizabeth Truss: All our decisions about pesticides are of course made in line with the best available science, but I assure my hon. Friend that our agri-food trade advisory group will absolutely look to make sure that our farmers are not disadvantaged in trade negotiations.

Navendu Mishra: Front Line Defenders published a report in 2019 that detailed the firings, torture and trials in military courts of trade unionists and workers who organised strikes in Egypt. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will not sign a trade deal with the Egyptian Government unless they agree to respect the right to form unions and the right to take industrial action?

Ranil Jayawardena: We will seek to provide continuity of trade with as many countries as possible through our continuity trade programme. We are always mindful of the trading partners we work with and we respect the rights and responsibilities that are intrinsic to British values in all that we do.

Ian Byrne: The Government have either reached free trade agreements or are in active negotiations with 15 of the 40 countries that the International Trade Union Confederation has identified as in the bottom category worldwide for their respect of workers’ rights. Will the Minister tell us in how many of those trade agreements the Government have secured or are seeking to secure clauses designed to protect workers’ rights?

Ranil Jayawardena: The details of free trade agreements are reserved for formal negotiations, many of which are ongoing. Her Majesty’s Government have been clear that increased trade does not have to come at the expense of our high labour standards. Britain is an active member of the International Labour Organisation, and we will continue to uphold our world-leading standards and international commitments.

Rachel Hopkins: I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments, because the rollover agreement that the Government reached with Kosovo   last year removed the requirement in the corresponding EU agreement for Kosovo to improve its laws on labour, health, safety at work and equal opportunities for women and men, for persons with disabilities and for persons belonging to minority groups. Can the Minister explain why?

Ranil Jayawardena: As the Secretary of State and other Ministers have made very clear, what we do in this country remains in domestic law, and our trade deals do not change the fact that we have world-beating standards of labour protection. Indeed, this Government have done great work to combat modern slavery, introduce a national living wage and ban exclusive zero-hours contracts.

Paul Blomfield: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for taking this point of order, because it relates to the questions that we have just heard. In answer to my question on rolling over the deals that we currently enjoy through membership of the European Union, the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), said, and I quote, that
“the vast majority of the trade covered by those deals has already been secured,”
and that was repeated by one of his colleagues. It is, however, contradicted by the Department’s own website, which says that 19 deals have been secured worth £84.07 billion last year, but there are 18 deals outstanding worth £84.5 billion—and that does not even include Japan. Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the record and confirm that the vast majority of trade is not covered by these deals, and in fact they cover slightly less than half?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order; it is a clarification. I am happy to leave it there unless the Secretary of State wishes to respond.

Elizabeth Truss: I think the hon. Gentleman is getting confused between the number of deals and the amount of trade that they cover. We have covered over 70% of the continuity trade, but some of those countries are smaller than others and have smaller amounts of trade.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think you have both put those things on the record for today, and we will end questions with that. In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Kickstart Scheme

Jonathan Reynolds: (Urgent Question)  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement on the implementation of the kickstart scheme.

Therese Coffey: Yesterday, the Government launched our new kickstart scheme, as set out in the written ministerial statement and the letter sent to all Members of both Houses. This £2 billion programme will fund the direct creation of thousands of additional jobs for young people at risk of long-term unemployment, to improve their chances of progressing to find long-term, rewarding and sustainable work.
As we build back our economy and return fully to work, a lack of work experience can be a barrier to stepping on to the jobs ladder, which is why, through kickstart, employers will be supported to access a massive recruitment pool of young people who want to work and are bursting with potential. Employers from all industries and across the private, public and voluntary sectors are eligible if they can meet our simple criteria on the provision of roles. Employers will need to show that these are additional jobs which provide the experience and support a young person needs to improve their chances of permanent employment. These need to be new roles that do not simply replace staff recently made redundant.
Funding available for each job covers the relevant national minimum wage rate for 25 hours a week, the associated employer national insurance contributions, and employer minimum automatic enrolment contributions, as well as £1,500 for wraparound support. There is no limit to the number of jobs that can be created, and organisations of all sizes are encouraged to participate.
If a business wants to offer only one or two kickstart jobs, as set out in the online guidance, employers can contact their local employer support managers with an expression of interest, and we will work to link them to an appropriate intermediary. These intermediaries could include local enterprise partnerships, local authorities or business groups, ensuring the necessary support is in place to deliver placements effectively. We will continue to be proactive on involving employers and intermediaries following the scheme’s launch yesterday.
We have already undertaken substantial engagement on our labour market strategy. I want to pay tribute to our civil servants in DWP and the Treasury who have brought this scheme to fruition, and I particularly want to thank and recognise my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), the Minister for employment, who has worked tirelessly with her usual passion for helping young people get on in life and who I know will continue to do so.
Kickstart is a key strand of our plan for jobs focused on young people and will be a boost for the British economy. I want to encourage businesses and organisations all to take advantage of the most ambitious youth employment programme in our history and help kickstart to become a flying start for our young people.

Jonathan Reynolds: Since the crisis began, we have been urging the Government to introduce a scheme based on the last Labour Government’s hugely successful future jobs fund to get as many young people into work as possible. We therefore welcome the kickstart scheme in principle, but we want assurances that it will be delivered in a way that maximises its impact. On that note, it is disappointing that it has taken until September for the scheme to be launched, and it is disappointing to have to summon Ministers via an urgent question just to ask basic questions on how the scheme will work.
In July of this year, there were already over 1 million young people not in full-time education or full-time employment. This is an urgent problem and we believe that the three key tests of this scheme are: whether the jobs it provides are real, quality jobs; whether it is available to support smaller businesses as well as larger ones; and whether it provides opportunities for long-term employment beyond the initial subsidised placement.
I ask the Secretary of State, first, how the Government will ensure that the jobs provided under this scheme are genuinely new, additional jobs. That is essential for the scheme to be a success, but how will it be evidenced? Secondly, given the existing scale of need, how will the Government ensure that the jobs that are created go to those who need them most? Even if, say, 200,000 new jobs were created, we could reasonably expect over 1 million young people to be eligible for those jobs. We need those jobs to go where they will have the biggest impact.
Thirdly, what feedback have the Government already received on the arrangements the Secretary of State has outlined for small businesses to participate in the scheme, given that the minimum number of jobs that can be created from a bid is 30? I hope she understands the considerable strength of feeling that already exists from small businesses in relation to that point. Fourthly, the jobs will be for a minimum of only 25 hours a week, but the Secretary of State has already brought back conditionality and sanctions, expecting people to look for work for 35 hours a week. If the Government’s expectation is that everyone should be working 35 hours a week, why are the jobs that the Government themselves are creating not for 35 hours a week?
Finally, while welcoming the scheme, I was alarmed by the Prime Minister’s presentation yesterday of kickstart as an alternative to providing continued targeted furlough support. The furlough scheme was there to ensure that people had jobs to return to when the alternative for many people would have been redundancy if their employers did not have the revenue to meet their payroll. Those circumstances still exist in some businesses—not in all, but in some—and that is why countries such as Germany, France and Ireland are continuing their furlough schemes until 2021. Needed as this scheme is, it cannot be a replacement in those sectors that do not have the ability to train and recruit new staff yet, and I strongly urge the Secretary of State to acknowledge that point too.

Therese Coffey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his sort of support for the kickstart scheme. I really think that across the House we should see this as an opportunity for us all to help young people in our constituencies. On the principles of the future jobs fund, we have actually taken some learnings from that, on where it worked and where it did not. He referred to the fact that it had taken  so long to get here, but we had the pandemic in March and this approach was announced in July. We have worked tirelessly on it and, as I say, I pay tribute to my civil servants in that regard. This is actually quite a contrast to the financial crisis of the late noughties, because I think I am right in saying that that placement scheme did not get going until October 2009. It was a long time before that happened, so we have worked at pace.
There are other elements from last time that we have learned from. Hardly any private sector businesses were involved, and the criteria were so stringent in different ways that, frankly, that scheme was very limited. I know that it is not about setting targets for these things, but the consequence of that was that the future jobs fund achieved just over 100,000 placements, although the ambition had been higher. So we have simplified the criteria.
The hon. Gentleman points to the threshold for small employers to get involved, but it is exactly the same threshold that applied to the future jobs fund, where businesses could only get involved by going through their local councils. We are opening this up in a different way, and I think we will start to see local enterprise partnerships and chambers of commerce getting involved as intermediary bodies, as well as councils. There is also a lot of support for this from many of the mayoral combined authorities.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of hours per week. The reason for this is that this is not just about rebates like the coronavirus furlough scheme. Young people will be expected, with their employers, to do more to prepare themselves for the world of work, and that may include work search in additional time. So that is another reason why intermediaries are going to be a key element in helping some of our small businesses to provide these placements, as well as the wraparound support that will be required. On the other elements to which he referred, I know that he has tabled several written questions and he will be answered.

Andy Carter: I thank the Secretary of State for a very helpful update. By way of some instant feedback, I found in my inbox this morning many questions from employers in Warrington South who are already keen to be part of the kickstart scheme. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will pay 100% of the cost of wages, national insurance and pension schemes, so there is no reason why businesses in Warrington South cannot sign up and create new jobs for young people?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is right: we are paying 100% for 25 hours a week, which is the minimum hours that we would expect people to be working. Of course, if employers want to pay more and do more, they can. This is not a limitation on the ambitions of organisations or the relevant contributions. I am pleased to say that people can go on gov.uk/kickstart today and see the online guidance. If they are a small business and cannot offer 30 jobs over the next 18 months, they can go straight to a contact in the DWP, and we will do that linking for them. More than 6,000 people had already started an application yesterday. That is very encouraging, and I am excited about it.

Neil Gray: We welcome any intervention that can protect jobs and secure the future of young people across these isles. The most effective intervention would, of course, be to extend the furlough scheme. I have three clear questions to ask in the time I have. First, why have the UK Government failed to respond to Scottish Government correspondence asking to work together on the implementation of the kickstart scheme, which is for Scotland, England and Wales? The Scottish Government have introduced a £60 million youth guarantee, which will guarantee every young person an opportunity for education, a job or training, backed by additional funding for apprenticeships and the new job start payment.
Secondly, why have the UK Government set as a minimum to qualify for the kickstart scheme that employers need to take on 30 new employees? Adding the bureaucracy set out yesterday will not help small businesses or young people in Airdrie and Shotts, and there is deep concern from the Federation of Small Businesses about this being a barrier, so why is there a 30-job minimum? Finally, will kickstart participants be paid the real living wage? I understand that they will not —why not?

Therese Coffey: The hon. Member may not be clear on the elements of the scheme, so I encourage him to read the written ministerial statement, the “Dear colleague” letter and what is on gov.uk. It is not a case that an employer has to come forward with a minimum of 30 placements over the lifetime of the scheme. That is if they want direct access to the DWP and a direct relationship, which is completely different from what happened under the future jobs fund. Small businesses can go through intermediaries, and that is why we have those links.
In terms of working with the Scottish Government, I am very conscious, and it is right, that the Scottish Government should be doing elements of this. Scotland has the highest unemployment rate in the UK, so it is no surprise that they are trying to fix that. It is important that we have the scheme consistently across Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, this is entirely devolved, but we will be working closely with it. It is important that we have a national framework and local delivery, and I am pleased that our jobcentres in Scotland are already on the case.

Scott Benton: The kickstart scheme is a brilliant example of the lengths that this Government are going to in order to support employment across the whole country. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging businesses in Blackpool South to sign up and take part in the scheme, so that we can make a real difference to the lives of young people in my constituency?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is so right. He is a great champion for the young people of Blackpool, as well as people of all ages. This scheme is really important to help communities such as Blackpool, and I am pleased that he is taking a lead in promoting it. It is key that we have a wide range of placements available. Of course, all referrals will be through the Jobcentre Plus network. It is that local partnership between our jobcentres and local employers, as well as the national approach that can be taken by larger organisations, that will mean that this reaches every part of the country, from coast to coast.

Stephen Timms: I opposed the closure of the future jobs fund in 2011. The Work and Pensions Committee, in its report in June, highlighted what a great job that scheme did 10 years ago, and I warmly welcome and applaud its return. Will the Secretary of State encourage charities, as happened last time, to take full advantage of the scheme, because they can create jobs that will give many young people a great start to their working lives? What will she do to ensure that disabled young people can take full advantage of it? Will she ensure the collection of sufficient data to allow a thorough evaluation subsequently, like the one published by her Department in November 2012?

Therese Coffey: I welcome the endorsement of the Select Committee Chairman. He will recognise some similarities to the future jobs fund, but ours is a much more ambitious programme and we are opening up more gateways into making sure that young people can access work and support. Of course the scheme is open to charitable organisations, which have been part of aspects of our engagement in considering the design of the programme and can be a very useful source here. My ministerial colleague in the Lords, Baroness Stedman-Scott, has great experience from her previous organisation and is already being an active ambassador with not only a variety of companies but other institutions, as is the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies).

Jane Hunt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the young people of this country are our future and that the kickstart scheme is both a huge help to them in securing work and gaining valuable experience and immensely helpful to businesses that are coming out of lockdown and getting back to business, as it helps them to add to their workforce?

Therese Coffey: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a mutually beneficial arrangement for young people and employers. The amount of money that has already been set aside is £2 billion of investment over, in effect, the next two years. We know that unlimited placements can be generated, and I am conscious that we need to try to get those partnerships going quickly, so that we can help young people to get on that first rung of the ladder.

Rachel Hopkins: What safeguards has the Secretary of State put in place to ensure that disabled young people are fully able to benefit from the kickstart programme? The employment rate for them stands at 37%, which compares with a figure of 57% for non-disabled people, so will she ensure that this new programme supports disabled young people?

Therese Coffey: The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work has, as with all DWP Ministers, been a key part of making sure we work at this as an entire Department. We have also been working with colleagues right across government, so we are taking a whole-government approach. Ensuring that we keep monitoring this issue has a role to play in this. In answer to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), let me say that we will be keeping this scheme going and trying to learn from it as we go, to make sure that we are reaching all parts of not only the country but our communities.

Andrea Jenkyns: I welcome the opportunity for young people to gain work experience, but the objective of kickstart must be sustained employment. Will my right hon. Friend tell me how kickstart will help young people into work beyond the six-month placement?

Therese Coffey: It is widely recognised that getting is job is easier once someone has had work experience and is in a job already. This creation of thousands of additional jobs through this scheme will, in itself, help to stimulate young people’s chances of getting future long-term employment. This is only one of the offers being made to the young people in our country today—there will be different routes that people might take—but we are particularly focusing here on kickstart, where we are trying to avoid the long-term scarring that could happen if people do not get any work at all.

Nick Smith: Cyber College Cymru in Blaenau Gwent gives opportunities for young people in the digital security sector, where there is strong employer demand. That industry will be vital to our future economy. Boosting jobs for young people is the right thing to do, but this needs to deliver long-term job security. Will the Minister clarify how many jobs will be created by the scheme and over what period?

Therese Coffey: We have currently set aside £2 billion to support this scheme, so well over 200,000 jobs could be created, but, as I have said, the number is unlimited. On different sectors, government itself is not going to create lots of jobs, although I am sure there may well be opportunities in aspects of the civil service and similar. This is about working with different sectors. We know there are growth sectors where we need more people to go into them. The hon. Gentleman recognises that there are shortages of certain skills, and indeed he refers to his local college. There will be opportunities for local employers who are needing those skills to take this scheme as an opportunity to bring a young person on, as well as help with training.

Jo Gideon: I welcome the opportunity that the kickstart scheme provides for many young people in Stoke-on-Trent Central whose employment prospects have been affected disproportionately in this pandemic. It is a great opportunity for them to get a foot on the jobs ladder. I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming that kickstart is open to employers from all sectors—large and small—businesses and charities. Will she confirm that information about this great scheme is readily accessible both to employers and to young people themselves?

Therese Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend. I know that she is a huge champion of getting young people to become entrepreneurs and that this is a passion of hers. Yes, the information is there on gov.uk/kickstart. Of course, if, in feedback, we hear that more information is needed, we will continue to update that. Our jobcentres are ready to help a large number of people to try to find that placement, and I genuinely believe that she, along with her hon. Friends in Stoke, will be helping to get more employers and other organisations involved.

Wendy Chamberlain: The award-winning Tayport Distillery in my constituency is very keen to take part in the kickstart scheme, but it is much harder for small businesses to apply, as they cannot do so directly if they are not taking on more than 30 people, and, frankly, intermediary bodies’ information seems to be, at best, in development. Given the delays already experienced—we still have a couple of months until the first participants start the scheme—will the Secretary of State make it easier for small businesses, which are the lifeblood of many economies, by allowing them to apply directly?

Therese Coffey: The scheme is being set up at pace, so I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s assertions. On small businesses, it is far easier than it has ever been for them to participate in this sort of job creation scheme. I am pleased that she already has businesses showing interest, and I encourage her to direct them to gov.uk/kickstart from where they will be able to get the links to their local employment manager.

Sarah Dines: I thank my right hon. Friend for this announcement today. It has been truly inspirational telephoning large and small local businesses in Derbyshire Dales, as there is quite a level of excitement about the scheme. I know that she is determined to help young people across the country. It is crucial to their lives. Can she confirm what other support, other than the kickstart scheme, is available for young people to help them get over this pandemic?

Therese Coffey: The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex, has held a roundtable meeting in Derbyshire. That has been part of the engagement. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) is right to suggest that there are other alternatives. Of course apprenticeships are available, which was further confirmed yesterday with the announcement of additional support, providing a longer-term relationship between young people and an employer. There are traineeships as well. So there are many opportunities available to try to help our young people get into the world of work.

Stephen Flynn: Paying some 17-year-olds £4.55 an hour for a three-day week for six months is welcome as far as it goes, but it is not going to avert the looming jobs crisis. The best way to avert that crisis is to extend the job retention scheme. Does the Secretary of State agree that that scheme should be extended, and if not, is this not less kickstart and more a kick in the teeth for millions of other workers living in the UK?

Therese Coffey: I do not know the hon. Member very well, but I am disappointed by his attitude. Candidly, millions of jobs have been protected by the furlough scheme, and we have extended that once already. He will be aware that Scotland has the highest unemployment rate in the UK. That is not a record for the SNP Government to be proud of, which is why we are ensuring that the kickstart scheme reaches all parts of Scotland. I hope that he will join in and try to make this a success in his great city of Aberdeen.

Rob Roberts: I welcome this outstanding scheme to get the young people and the lifeblood of our future economic prosperity into work. I am slightly concerned, however, that some unscrupulous employers may use this scheme to reduce the hours of people already on their books, or potentially not to give the hours to people who are already with them on flexible contracts. Will my right hon. Friend explain what safeguards are in place in the scheme to stop employers from doing that and to make sure that the rights of existing workers are also respected?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is right to talk about existing workers. We have been clear in our guidance, and will continue to be so in our assessment of applications, that this is not simply displacing existing roles. I am confident that, in particular on small businesses, with the involvement of the intermediaries, that extra quality assurance will be there. I am sure that when he is out and about in his lovely constituency, he will be able to champion the scheme and show how people can get that link.

Hywel Williams: As our economy reopens following many challenging months, now is the time to build a recovery that will work for young people and the planet they will inherit by investing in green jobs. How will the kickstart scheme contribute specifically to our green recovery from covid-19?

Therese Coffey: The hon. Gentleman is right that part of building back better is about building back greener. In several of the sectors where we have been encouraging ways to get involved in kickstart as well as apprenticeships, it will be about that green recovery. As I said earlier, it is not that we can create in every individual job. That is why we are working with organisations and businesses to try to do that. I believe that this boost of paying wages for 25 hours a week for a young person who is bursting with potential and wanting to get into the world of work will be a boost to those companies in and around his constituency who want to have that green recovery.

James Davies: I very much welcome yesterday’s launch of the kickstart scheme, which can do much to help young people across Great Britain get into work. Since the launch, I have heard from a number of small business owners such as Hal Holmes-Pierce, who runs an independent shoe shop in Prestatyn and is keen to be involved. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that business owners such as Hal will be able to take part in the scheme?

Therese Coffey: I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased that we are establishing a youth hub in Rhyl in his constituency, which will be part of an important link between our Jobcentre Plus network and local businesses such as those to which he refers. I am sure we can get under way with more webinars and similar so that we can bring employers into this exciting opportunity for young people in his constituency.

Lilian Greenwood: As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) highlighted, young disabled  people are far more likely to experience unemployment. Even before the pandemic, 29% of disabled 16 to 24-year-olds were not in education, employment or training compared to 9% of their non-disabled peers. If they are black or working class, they are even more likely to experience unemployment. I heard what the Secretary of State said, but will she be clearer about what specific measures her Department is taking to ensure that the kickstart programme targets those who most need support? There is a real danger that they will be left completely behind and suffer even greater disadvantage during the pandemic.

Therese Coffey: Actually, the employment gap between disabled people and people without disabilities has narrowed under the Government since 2010. That is a record of which we are proud, but we know there is still more to do. In terms of a national framework, it is clearly important to try to help people with disabilities get into work. There is already a wide range of funds, so I am conscious that local jobcentres will be working with potential employers or other organisations to try to ensure that everybody who needs the most support and who would be away from the employment market for the longest without that intervention, will be covered.

James Sunderland: I am absolutely sold on this superb initiative and it received a ringing endorsement yesterday from our hard-working jobcentres in east Berkshire. Could I please ask the Secretary of State how the Government intend to convince our perennial doomsters about its full utility and longevity?

Therese Coffey: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm and endorsement. He is right to be enthusiastic about this opportunity for young people. The scheme is intended to take applications up to December 2021 to roll into summer 2022. Of course, this is just one element of our Government’s plan for jobs, but the ambition is unprecedented. I can think of a whole series of large employers in his constituency such as 3M and Waitrose headquarters who I am confident can join, but it is also bristling with smaller employers who I hope will be able to join the scheme, too.

Stephen Doughty: It is good to see the Secretary of State learning not only from the Future Jobs Fund example but the Jobs Growth Wales example set by the Welsh Labour Government over the past few years. It is so crucial that this leads to long-term employment, not just temporary employment, so will she agree to work closely with the Welsh Government to dovetail this scheme with the existing Jobs Growth Wales scheme, the apprenticeship scheme, the traineeship scheme and the ReAct scheme, which are already in place, to ensure that there is a full package for young people in particular to stay in work? Will she look again at the 30-person limit? SMEs are a much bigger part of the economy in Wales and we need to ensure that they are able to benefit as much as they can from the scheme.

Therese Coffey: The Government already have close relationships on aspects of trying to help people get into work. It is worth pointing out that the Welsh Labour Government’s own report into Job Growth Wales, published  in June this year, found that the programme suffered from a lack of clarity and momentum. It does not matter who provides the support to get people into work, whether it is the Welsh Government or the United Kingdom Government. I want to make sure that we focus on the young people for whom it is intended, rather than some of the bureaucracy that may come in other ways.

Kevin Brennan: I support the general principle of the Government intervening to help young people into work in this way and I was really disappointed in 2010 when the Government dropped the Future Jobs Fund. I am slightly disappointed that this scheme has been allowed to be designed in such a way that it is for the convenience of the Department, rather than small businesses. Having been a Government Minister I know how this works in the Department for Work and Pensions, but could the Minister, in all seriousness, go back and talk to officials and see if there is any way of making this more friendly to small businesses?

Therese Coffey: The hon. Gentleman talks about the Future Jobs Fund. It was a failure in getting the private sector involved. It was a failure in getting much smaller businesses involved. That is why we have stripped back the criteria to focus on what really matters for the young person, rather than a tick-box exercise on all sorts of different benefits that needed to be created. I am not trashing the Future Jobs Fund, because the intention was absolutely right, but we want to make sure that this has a wider ambition. There is already a youth hub in Cardiff. We have already had approaches about wanting to get involved. That is why the gateway for small businesses is much simpler than it has ever been in previous similar schemes. I am confident that we will make it a success.

Rachael Maskell: Charities and social enterprises delivered over 60% of placements under the Future Jobs Fund, with over half retaining employment after six months. However, most organisations can only take on one or two young people due to capacity. The Labour Government worked closely with the sector to make it easily deliverable, yet this Government’s engagement with charities and social enterprises has been insufficient. Will the Secretary of State commit today to meet sector leaders from organisations such as the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and Social Enterprise UK to ensure that every job that can be found is found and that young people are given real hope and a future?

Therese Coffey: The hon. Lady should be aware that there have been 330 stakeholder engagements with a mixture of groups and of course social enterprises will be a key element of that. The important thing is that we make sure we have good jobs for young people to go into. I absolutely believe that social enterprises will be an important part of that. When I was at Canary Wharf yesterday at the launch of the scheme, the social enterprise around the Canary Wharf Group was expressing interest in how it can bring together a number of different organisations in Canary Wharf to make sure a wide variety of businesses can be involved. That absolutely has to be the way forward.

Shabana Mahmood: Some 72% of the population in my constituency are from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give me that measures will be taken to ensure that young people from minority backgrounds have equality of access and opportunity under the scheme, and that the systemic inequality we all know exists in our employment market will not be allowed to be a feature of the scheme?

Therese Coffey: The hon. Lady is right to focus on the young people in her constituency and their challenges to employment. There is already a youth hub in Birmingham. We are learning from the employability coaches who are already in place. The West Midlands Combined Authority is very keen. The Mayor and the chief executive, Deborah Cadman, are very engaged in wanting to make this happen. My officials will be meeting the West Midlands Combined Authority again today.

Dan Jarvis: The UK is one of the most regionally unequal countries in the developed world, especially when it comes to employment, so will the Secretary of State say how the kickstart scheme fits with the Government’s levelling-up agenda? What guarantees can she give that communities such as the ones that I serve in South Yorkshire will get the additional support that they need?

Therese Coffey: I think the hon. Gentleman was in a roundtable with my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment that focused on that issue. Part of our approach is about having a national framework but a lot of local deliverability, with very local connections, so it is part of the local recovery. I am sure that he and several other Mayors who have been in those roundtables are very up for that. Of course, trying to level up across the country is a key priority for the Government, and we will be straining every sinew to help people like the hon. Gentleman, with his local community, to try to generate those jobs.

Kieran Mullan: By giving them opportunities to get their foot in the door, this scheme demonstrates that this Government are really going to help young people get on in life. I have already started discussions with my local chamber of commerce, because I am keen to work with businesses in Crewe and Nantwich that are really keen to get involved. Will the Secretary of State confirm how small businesses are able to take part in the scheme, to push away some of the negativity we hear, which is not based in reality?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I assure him that the British Chambers of Commerce has been heavily involved in this. Of course the full details came out yesterday. I know that individual chambers of commerce may well be set up as intermediaries. They need to do what is right for them. I have made it clear that that cannot be only for their members; the organisations that they reach have to be broader than that. I am confident that we will get those intermediary bodies that are not already established up and running very quickly, and I encourage him to make sure that his local chamber is one of them.

Felicity Buchan: The future jobs fund was not a 100% success, although it had many merits. Will my right hon. Friend outline what improvements have been made in the kickstart scheme?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is right; the future jobs fund did have some good achievements, and we have learned from what worked well and what did not work so well. The main thing I would point out is that this is a much bigger programme with a much wider range of involvement and, even if some of that is through an intermediary, every organisation can easily get involved. We have simplified the criteria. We are still making sure that these are new additional roles, but it is important that we try to get some of these placements under way. I am sure that we will have some very lively kickstarters starting their new jobs before the end of the year.

Stephen Farry: This is a very welcome scheme, but it does not apply to Northern Ireland. Under devolution, we have the opportunity to develop a local scheme with a Barnett consequential; however, it was only this morning that our Department for Communities indicated its intention to do so. Can the Secretary of State confirm that her officials are willing to help Northern Ireland to develop its response?

Therese Coffey: I was in Northern Ireland last week meeting senior people from the Department for Communities as part of a fact-finding mission. Our officials are in regular contact, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this is a devolved matter. If the Department for Communities would like our help as part of the mutual relationship that we already share, we would be happy to support, but it is important to state that this is devolved, and we absolutely respect that.

Martin Vickers: Three jobcentres serve my constituency: in Barton, Immingham and Grimsby. I visited the Grimsby site a couple of weeks ago, and the staff there are enthusiastic about the work they are doing to encourage young people. One thing that cannot happen under the present arrangements, of course, is the usual programme of job fairs and similar group undertakings. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that we need close links between jobcentres and further education colleges, for example, in order to encourage our young people into this scheme?

Therese Coffey: There are usually already very good relationships between colleges and jobcentres. There are actually some virtual job fairs happening already; there is a particularly big one in London today focused on accounting. That is the not quite the new normal, but it is to try to engage a wider group of people. I will ask the local area manager to follow up with my hon. Friend to make sure that he is fully aware of all the virtual job fairs that are available.

Owen Thompson: Midlothian is the fastest-growing region of Scotland, with record growth in new businesses operating there. They would welcome the chance to use the kickstarter scheme, but 93% of them are SMEs and cannot access the funding directly. Why is the Minister putting big business first and putting bureaucratic blocks in the road for small businesses, who are the backbone of the economy?

Therese Coffey: I was also in Scotland last week, talking about the potential of this in helping young people right across Scotland. Barriers have actually been removed from previous designs of schemes. This is a straightforward way to try to help people to get involved, but it is important that the extra support that goes to help these young people is delivered at good quality. That will be important for the employer but also for the intermediary, who will often have a greater amount of experience to help to ensure that this is fully effective.

Selaine Saxby: Tourism is vital to north Devon, and many small tourism businesses such as Mill Park caravan and campsite in Berrynarbor are enthusiastic about recruiting local young people through the kickstart scheme. Will my right hon. Friend detail how smaller businesses wanting to take on just one or two young people in rural areas like north Devon can participate, when we are currently lacking any intermediaries?

Therese Coffey: I am pleased to hear that people in my hon. Friend’s constituency are keen to get involved in offering these opportunities for young people. The best way, if they have an expression of interest, is for them to contact the local jobcentre or directly email their expression of interest to the contact, which is set out on gov.uk/kickstart with one simple link to go from there.
In terms of access, there will be an opportunity for potential umbrella organisations that may include her destination marketing organisation as a way of co-ordinating this approach. We are also expecting local enterprise partnerships to get heavily involved. I know that many discussions are already under way.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. To allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Business of the House

Valerie Vaz: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The business for the week commencing 7 September will include:
Monday 7 September—Remaining stages of the Fire Safety Bill, followed by motion relating to the appointment of trustees to the House of Commons Members Fund, followed by motion relating to the reappointment of the Chairman of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, followed by motion relating to the reappointment of an Electoral Commissioner.
Tuesday 8 September—Remaining stages of the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 9 September—Opposition day (11th allotted day). There will be a debate on protection of jobs and businesses, followed by a debate on this summer’s exam results. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.
Thursday 10 September—General debate on the aviation sector, followed by general debate on support for the tourism industry after the covid-19 lockdown. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 11 September—Private Members’ Bills.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for the business for next week, and for the Opposition day. May I correct him on the title of the second debate on our Opposition day? The official title will be “The personal role and involvement of the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Education in this summer’s exams fiasco.”
I welcome the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who is standing in for the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard).
One small plea, Mr Speaker, in terms of voting: that we separate the queues. I know that you, too, are quite keen to separate the Ayes and the Noes. If we could do that, that might be safer.
On an extremely serious note, yesterday the Prime Minister, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, said that he would not meet the families of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK because they were in litigation. They have said they are not in litigation, so I think the Prime Minister has to come to the House—maybe he will do that on Wednesday—to correct the record. Could he then meet the families?
Could the Leader of the House find time to introduce urgent legislation on the rotection of renters? I think the current protection runs out on 20 September and we need that urgent legislation for further protection.
We have prayed against the town and country planning permitted development regulations—I think there are three sets of them. The shadow Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), has written to the Secretary of State. I hope that the Leader of the House will find time for that debate.
During August Parliament was not sitting, but extremely important announcements were being made. I cannot understand why the Government, who say consistently that Parliament is sovereign, do not come to the House to explain changes in policy. Apparently, algorithms will now be used in planning decisions. That takes away the very nature of making planning decisions—whether relevant considerations are taken into account or whether irrelevant considerations are taken into account—and it undermines administrative law. When you make a decision, you must give reasons.
The Town and Country Planning Association says that 90% of planning applications are approved and there are 1 million unbuilt commissions. It is time for the shires to rise up and oppose these new policies. Will the Leader of the House ask the current Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to come to the House to explain why he is using algorithms to stomp on our green and pleasant land?
As though that was not enough, the Secretary of State for Education must come to Parliament—not just on our Opposition day, but next week, given the written and oral evidence of the chair of Ofqual. On Tuesday, the Education Secretary did not apologise for the debacle; all he said was that he was
“deeply sorry that those who have borne the brunt…have been students”.—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 42.]
There was nothing about the mistake—no mention that students had to demonstrate to be heard. There were three in the marriage: the Department of Education, Public First, which was appointed in June, and Ofqual. We need an urgent statement and a proper response, and the current Secretary of State for Education must explain who knew what and when, and that includes the Prime Minister. They are using algorithms to stomp on the dreams of our young people.
It is very sad that the great educationist, Sir Ken Robinson, passed away; he made a great contribution to education and his TED talks were absolutely amazing—they have the most views, and I urge people to watch them.
May I write to the Leader of the House about a constituent whose two sons had their grades downgraded and cannot take the A-levels and GCSEs that they want? He has been very responsive whenever I have written to him.
Of course, we all mourn the passing of John Hume, that great peacemaker. Talking of Ireland, may we have a debate on the £355 million package and the £200 million that goes to the trader support service, which will help with paperwork for the Northern Ireland border? We are slightly confused by the remarks of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: he says that although the
“protocol doesn’t change the economic or the constitutional position”,
it does give Northern Ireland
“privileged access into the European single market.”
Well, we would like that for the rest of the United Kingdom. So there is in fact a border in the Irish sea.
Why is the Department of Health and Social Care not answering written questions? Hon. Members are getting answers back saying that it is not possible to answer the question in the usual time. Why?
In answer to a question at column 6 of Tuesday’s Official Report from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) about the remaining functions of Public Health England, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that the new functions would be “embedded” in the NHS, but did not say how. Will the right hon. Gentleman come to the House to explain what is going to happen with all those functions of PHE, instead of randomly closing A&Es around the country?
May we also have an urgent statement on the recruitment process at No. 10? Yet another person who has applied to the adverts for “weirdos and misfits” has now had to resign because of their extreme views, and a Minister has had to relinquish shares in a company because his company was given a contract under these emergency schemes. That goes to the heart of No. 10—there is something rotten at the heart of No. 10. It is like Palmyra: they are destroying accountable structures on the ground of false ideology. Here is the “Ministerial Code”:
“Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions”
of Government Departments and agencies. They are not.
Of course I am going to raise Nazanin and Anoosheh, but let me take a different tack: will the Leader of the House ask the Defence Secretary to kindly look at Richard Ratcliffe’s letter? There is also Luke Symons in Yemen; my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is supporting the family.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) is on the mend, but I just want to finally mention Julia Clifford, who works in the Tea Room and who is, sadly, very ill. I know she has the love and support of all hon. Members throughout the House; we wish her a speedy recovery—it will be a long one, but we want to see her back in the Tea Room.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about that. The pleasure that all Members get from going to the Tea Room is due to the wonderful staff there, who work so hard and cheer us all up. They spread a degree of sweetness and light, which politicians sometimes try to do, but not always as successfully as those in the Tea Room.
On Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, I note what the right hon. Lady says about a letter to the Defence Secretary. I will take that up—and, indeed, Anoosheh Ashoori. Both of these issues are of considerable concern to Her Majesty’s Government. I do not have any particularly new information, but I am always willing to take up any points that the right hon. Lady raises at these sessions.
May I also associate myself with the words of the right hon. Lady about John Hume, who was indeed a great contributor to peace? May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace.
Now I want to come to the right hon. Lady’s political points—this question of No. 10 appointments. We are lucky that No. 10 Downing Street has such fine people working there—fine intellects, people doing their best for this country, people thinking things through, coming up with inspired ideas—and I do not think it would be possible to imagine a better functioning, more forward-looking Government than the one we currently have.  [Interruption.] Of course the Opposition scoff, but dare I say it, that is in the title of being in the Opposition. It is, as Disraeli said, the job of the Opposition to oppose, even when they see this shining beacon of wisdom in front of them, as they get in No. 10.

Chris Bryant: And a Conservative Government is an organised hypocrisy.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Not everything Disraeli said needs to be quoted. It is like the Bible—even the devil can quote scriptures from time to time.
Let me come to the individual points. The Prime Minister is very good at holding meetings with people and is very responsible about the meetings that he holds. He cannot inevitably, with all the good will in the world, possibly hold meetings with everybody who asks for them and I know that the right hon. Lady understands that.
As for the protection of renters, they have been protected but there is always a balance to be struck. There are stories now about people not being able to go back into their own homes because people are not paying rent and therefore they are keeping out the homeowners who are coming back from abroad, and all sorts of things. There is a balance in this, and the Government have, I think, struck the right balance in protecting people during this extraordinary crisis, but that cannot go on forever.
As regards the Town and Country Planning Act regulations, I am in discussion with the Secretary of State in regards to whether or not the prayer against them can have time found for a debate. I will report back to the House with an answer to that in due course. The right hon. Lady called for the shires to rise up. I am a county Member, not a borough Member—I believe that she is a borough Member—and I would not call upon the shires to rise up, and certainly not my shire county of Somerset. The last time we rose up was of great importance, because it was of course when Alfred the Great defeated the Danes. So when Somerset rises up, the nation is reformed, changed, improved, but we are a peaceable people in Somerset and therefore I think have no immediate plans to rise up.
The right hon. Lady then had a pop at my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary.
I think he has done an absolutely first-class job under difficult circumstances, and the truth is—

Chris Bryant: He has been downgraded!

Jacob Rees-Mogg: No, he has been upgraded. He is an A* individual and an A* Secretary of State—not on estimated grades, but on the facts before us. We know he is an A* Secretary of State because he was able to react to a situation quickly and put it right. The real success of Governments is, when there is a problem, being able to put it right. That is what my right hon. Friend did and for which he deserves the most enormous credit. He regularly appears in this House, so there is no question of him failing to make appearances and answer questions—as, of course, is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who has been before this House and kept us up to date on numerous occasions over the last six months and will continue to do so, because the Government have the fullest respect for this House, as it should.
Of course I note the right hon. Lady’s point that the Department of Health and Social Care is not answering written questions in a timely way, and I will take that up, because that is part of my job as Leader of the House. I have, as the House will know, been very sympathetic to the Department of Health and Social Care particularly during this pandemic for some tardiness in response. I think, six months in, that sympathy is not as great as it previously was, and that is probably true for the House as a whole, so I will absolutely take up what she has asked me to do.
On the position of Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland remains a fundamental part of the United Kingdom and will have complete, uninhibited access to the GB market. That is a very important part of the withdrawal agreement.

Patrick Grady: We send our best wishes to Julia in the Tea Room and join the tributes paid to John Hume and others.
After three days back, it is almost as if we have never been away. The Government’s shambles over the summer has continued. Despite the Leader of the House defending the Secretary of State for Education, it seems to have been a huge surprise to the Education Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that they might be required to make statements in the House on the first day back, because the official Opposition and SNP Front Benchers did not receive sight of those statements until minutes before Ministers got to their feet. That was quite unfortunate, and I hope the Leader of the House can assure us that the usual courtesies will be more properly observed in the future.
I am sure that some Government Back Benchers are taking great delight from the fact that the new term has begun with the Government ripping up cross-party consensus on international aid and threatening to undermine the 0.7% target, just at the time that our poorest brothers and sisters around the world need it most. Can the Leader of the House assure us that, even if the Department for International Development is no more, the Government are not afraid of scrutiny of their aid spending and that the International Development Committee will be able to continue as a non-departmental Select Committee for as long as it needs to?
What is increasingly emerging out of all this is a tale of two Governments on these islands: right-wing populism from the Leader of the House and his colleagues to mask the utter shambles of their domestic policy agenda, compared with the strong leadership being shown in Scotland and a hugely ambitious programme for government announced by the First Minister this week. This Tory Government just want to get back to pressing a reset switch, to return to the rat race and trickle-down economics as soon as they can. In Scotland, we recognise that the opportunity exists to work our way out of the pandemic towards a greener, fairer society and economy. The more those policy agendas diverge, the more people in Scotland will seek to go their own way.
Finally, on a slightly more consensual note, the Leader of the House will know that this month marks the 10th anniversary of the state visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom and his prophetic speech in Westminster Hall. Would the Leader of the House be willing to discuss with interested parties in this House, the House of Lords and elsewhere how that visit can be appropriately reflected on and commemorated?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: What an extremely good point the hon. Gentleman makes about His Holiness the Pope Emeritus, who made a wonderful and inspirational speech in Westminster Hall 10 years ago and told politicians a few home truths with an authority that only the Holy Father can have. It would be marvellous to commemorate that. It occurs to me that next Tuesday 8 September is the birthday of Our Lady, and perhaps we can have a little commemoration then to celebrate the 10th anniversary and consider what we may put in Westminster Hall to note it, as other speeches are recorded in Westminster Hall with little plaques.
That, I am afraid, is where the cross-party consensus comes to an end, and it is more a religious consensus between all three spokesmen for the respective parties today. Scotland has done so marvellously well—yes, thanks to £6.5 billion of spending provided by the UK taxpayer, which has protected 157,000 self-employed people and 779,500 jobs in the furlough scheme and delivered 6.7 million pieces of personal protective equipment. Without the United Kingdom, I am afraid Nicola Sturgeon and her trusty crew would be all at sea.
Talking of being all at sea, we had Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill earlier this week, and the SNP opposed restoring fishing rights to this country. It does not have the interests of the people of Scotland at heart, and it certainly does not have the interests of the people of the United Kingdom at heart, but the United Kingdom certainly has the interests of Scotland at heart through a good Unionist Government.
The Government and, as Leader of the House, I believe that scrutiny leads to better government, and therefore I am sure the House will work out ways of scrutinising spending. There are a number of ways of doing so, but departmental Select Committees, as a rule, need to follow Departments.

Duncan Baker: This summer, I spent my recess touring the beautiful constituency of North Norfolk, my home, and a question that cropped up on the doorstep time and again was this: will the Government find time to debate the ever increasing problem of first-time buyers not being able to get on to the housing market in these coastal beauty spots and scenic areas where local people are often priced out in their own home?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is a fundamental point. Helping young people on to the housing ladder is what Conservatives in government always do. Throughout the 20th century, the most successful Conservative Prime Ministers, such as Baldwin, Macmillan and Margaret Thatcher, oversaw huge rises in home ownership, to the enrichment and benefit of the nation. That is why the Government are embarking on a radical overhaul of our planning system, which will increase the supply of housing throughout the country, particularly in areas of highest demand. This is important: we will not deliver affordable homes for people if we do not build more homes, and that means people welcoming the proposed planning reforms so that we can help people into those homes.

Ian Mearns: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing—at long last—two long-awaited Backbench Business debates on Thursday next, on the effect of  covid-19 on the aviation sector in this country and around the world, and also, of course, on the effect on the tourism industry.
We still have 30 unheard debates on our waiting list, covering a huge range of issues. This country, because of its history, has huge influence around the world, and there is a long line of debates waiting to be heard on international topics, such as Yemen, Israel, the Rohingya, the crisis in Sudan and so on. Of course, a huge range of domestic issues also await important debates, particularly on aspects of the Government’s management of the covid-19 pandemic in this country. As soon as we can get some more time, we would be very grateful, as would Members from across the House who are waiting for their debates to be heard.
As always, I ask the Leader of the House to use his good offices to help us with something. My director of public health in Gateshead is concerned that, despite the number of covid-19 cases in Gateshead going up from 18 to 33 to 38 in the past fortnight, our testing capacity has gone—it has just dried up; completely evaporated. At the latest count, we have only enough tests to take us from 8 o’clock in the morning to completely running out by 10 pm. That has significant problems for equalities issues, in terms of who can be tested and where and when. Our director of public health would really like the Government to do something about that and to increase testing capacity. It is important not only in hotspots but everywhere, particularly where local communities are seeing an increase in the number of cases.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about there being 30 debates on the waiting list. We certainly intend to try to facilitate Backbench Business debates. We in this House are, in every sense, getting back to normal. It is really noticeable that more people are around the Houses of Parliament, with people having their staff coming back. We are getting back—as is the country at large—to a more normal way of working. Westminster Hall Chamber will reopen, I hope, in October; there are certainly plans to do that. I am very conscious of the need to work through this list of 30.
As regards the question of testing in Gateshead, I will take that up with the Secretary of State for Health on behalf of the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that I am not personally an expert in that particular field.

James Sunderland: This country must return to normality, and it is incumbent upon us in this place to take the lead. Does the Leader of the House agree that we now need proactively to mitigate the risks of operating in a covid-secure environment and get this Chamber functioning normally?

Lindsay Hoyle: Leader of the House, who should answer it—me or you?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is a very good point, Mr Speaker; I was about to say that it is more your responsibility than mine, and I am always cautious of treading on your toes. There was a bit of a double act with your predecessor, who sometimes used to interfere in Question Time and answer questions that were directed to the Leader of the House, but it has been slightly more normal under your period of office, Mr Speaker.
I am really keen that this Chamber should be as full as it possibly and safely can be. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you saw the comments made in the debate last night, when people asked whether we could use the Galleries, have microphones at the Cross Benches at the back and do things to get more people in. I am very keen that we should, and I think I can speak for you, Mr Speaker, in saying that you are keen that we should, but we slightly run up against the official advice from Public Health England. It is difficult for this House, of all places, to ignore the advice that has been given by an official body. That is where we are slightly stymied, but perhaps PHE will be more flexible, and I know that Mr Speaker will then encourage more people to come in.

Judith Cummins: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on local restrictions in areas such as Bradford? The Secretary of State’s decision last week to keep my constituency within local restrictions while reverting others in the Bradford district to national restrictions has left me and many of my constituents extremely angry. The Government have not published the data or the criteria behind the decision. We need transparency, consistency and clarity, not party politics, so may we have a statement?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is not party politics; it is a very difficult decision. When the Government restrict the freedom of individuals, they should do so very cautiously and only when they have to. There is no legitimacy in taking away people’s freedoms unless there is a fundamental reason to do so. As soon as that reason is gone, the restrictions should be removed. That is what we agreed in the House when we passed the emergency legislation. As long as the necessity is there, the restrictions of course need to remain. I am sure that the hon. Lady is making her points clearly to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and I am sure that all the data are being examined to see when people’s freedoms can be restored.

Felicity Buchan: Central London has been badly affected by coronavirus, with very low retail footfall and few office workers returning. Will my right hon. Friend countenance a debate on how we can help our inner cities to return to normal and promote their economies?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is a very important issue, because London’s economy is in so many ways the beating heart of the nation’s economy, and to get this great bustling metropolis back to its bustle is of fundamental importance. There was a discussion on 1 September, led by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with other Ministers and the Mayor of London, focused on London recovery. We can all do our bit by eating out while we are in London, encouraging people and reassuring them that businesses are open and we should start using them. The Government have done things such as the temporary cut in stamp duty land tax, which has helped economic activity throughout the country—although because prices are much higher in London, perhaps less so in London than elsewhere. We really need London to be getting back to work and I encourage people who can come back into work safely  to do so as soon as possible and to start getting the economy going by buying their sandwiches, going on the train—all the things that get life back to normal.

Tan Dhesi: In 2012, in order to boost our economy, enhance our environment and ensure that 20% of the UK population would be within one interchange of our nation’s main airport, the Government publicly promised to build the western rail link to Heathrow. Even now, the Prime Minister is dreaming up soundbites: “Build, build, build—we will build ourselves out of this crisis.” Despite these grand gestures, despite Heathrow being willing to make a substantial contribution and despite eight years having elapsed, not a single shovel has gone into the ground. Perhaps the Leader of the House could grant us the courtesy of a debate in Government time on key infra- structure projects and the Government’s incapability and incompetence when it comes to actually building.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government have set out infrastructure plans that involve spending billions of pounds across the country and this is where the effect will be felt. Money has been made available to local councils to bring forward infrastructure programmes that they already have in the pipeline. Of course, there will be individual proposals and programmes that are subject to delays, but the overall record and ambition of this Government in building infrastructure is second to none.

Joy Morrissey: Will my right hon. Friend join me in noting that the BBC is now going to broadcast “Land of Hope and Glory” as it should be heard? After what could be described as a smokescreen set of excuses for its original decision, concocted to mask yet another virtue-signalling capitulation to political correctness—but I could not possibly comment —it has, as it put it, “reversed” its decision. That is a description that, in the context of anything to do with this Government, it would characterise as a U-turn. Can my right hon. Friend think of any reason for this curious inconsistency?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Mr Speaker, I wonder—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The Leader of the House should know better. The man supposed to uphold the values of this House has just broken them. How dare he?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Mr Speaker, I of course apologise for any offence that I may have given to the House, but
“When Britain first, at Heaven’s command,
Arose from out the azure main,
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:
‘Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.’”
Let us hope that the BBC will recognise the virtues of Britannia in this land of hope and glory.

Lindsay Hoyle: Has he any more handout questions we have to be aware of?

Carol Monaghan: Unfortunately, I do not have “Flower of Scotland” ready to play, but I will get it for the next time.
According to The BMJ, one in 10 people who contract covid are still unwell more than three weeks after their initial infection, and some are remaining unwell many months later. Symptoms such as severe headaches, extreme fatigue, dizziness and difficulty in concentrating are typical and, notably, exercise can amplify these symptoms. Will the Government make a statement on the financial support that will be made available for those who are currently unable to return to work due to post-covid symptoms, and the plans they have to financially support phased and part-time returns?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady raises the very important and serious point that all the long-term consequences of the coronavirus are not known and what support will be needed for people. Obviously, the general welfare system does have support for people with long-term health conditions, and in that regard the coronavirus will not be any different. The only difference currently is a lack of full knowledge, but the Government, expert scientists and the doctors are working to try to understand more fully the consequences of the long-term effects of the coronavirus. So I can assure her that things are being done, but I cannot give her a more complete answer because the investigations are not completed.

Steve Double: I am tempted to launch into a rousing rendition of “Trelawny”, but I will resist.
There is growing concern in Cornwall that Cornwall Council is keeping its offices and face-to-face services closed and not holding council meetings. This is making it very difficult for my constituents to access council services and preventing these decisions by the council from being properly scrutinised and held to account. Could we have a statement from the Government on the importance of local councils reopening as much as possible as soon as possible in order that the public can access their services, that council officers can be held to account and scrutinised, and that, when the Government are encouraging people back to work, local authorities take a lead and set an example?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend raises a pressing issue, and I think many Members of the House will see this in their own constituencies. Remote working has benefits for some companies and organisations, but in many essential services it cannot serve as an appropriate substitute for face-to-face personal contact. I am sure I am not alone among MPs in finding that face-to-face constituency surgeries are much better than remote ones or ones held purely by correspondence. Current local authority meeting regulations enable all meetings to be held remotely, but since July the regulations have been adjusted to allow indoor gatherings of more than 30 people in places such as council buildings. I would encourage his local council and other local councils to try to get back to normal, and not make lives more difficult for democratic accountability by not getting back to the ordinary way of running things.

Tulip Siddiq: Although face masks are vital for containing coronavirus, they can be profoundly isolating for deaf and hard-of-hearing people who rely on lip reading to understand  what others are saying. Would it be possible to have a debate in Government time about clear face masks—the ones with a transparent panel over the mouth—and their use in the NHS, schools and elsewhere, to help the 12 million people in the UK who are affected by hearing loss?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady raises a point of great interest and, if I may say so, good sense. I do not want to promise her a debate in Government time, because I think she has managed to highlight something that will be important and that I certainly had not considered, although I was aware that deaf and hard-of-hearing people who lip read found that face masks made it harder for them to understand what others were saying. Indeed, I think many of us may lip read rather more than we thought—partially, in conversation. I think her suggestion of see-through face masks is a very good one. She has made her point, and I hope that others will pick it up.

Huw Merriman: I welcome two very important events on Thursday 10 September. The first is my mother’s 83rd birthday, and the second is the general debate on aviation. I thank the Leader of the House for finding the time for the aviation debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee and its Chair for putting that debate first among the 30 that have been approved. The debate will give colleagues from across the House a chance to stand up for the aviation workforce and organisations in their constituencies, and for the Government to set out what they are doing to support aviation.
May I ask the Leader of the House to remind all colleagues in this place that it is still possible to come into the Chamber and intervene, and that they do not have to be on the call list to do so? When I open that debate, I will ensure that every voice is heard for the aviation industry.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I begin by wishing my hon. Friend’s mother many happy returns for her birthday on 10 September, which will, I hope, be a day of jubilation and song in the Merriman household. My hon. Friend makes an important point about interventions in the Chamber. Most debates are not entirely full of those who are making speeches in them, and there are opportunities for Members to come into the Chamber, make interventions and get their point on the record. I share his view that when making an introductory speech, it is a good idea to take as many interventions as possible. Doing so allows other Members to get their point across, sometimes in a briefer form than would be the case if they decided to make a speech.

Deidre Brock: I was delighted to hear the Leader of the House say earlier that he believes that scrutiny leads to better government. I am sure that he will welcome my request for a debate in Government time on contracts awarded without tendering during the pandemic, so that Members can scrutinise, for example, the £840,000 of taxpayers’ cash that went to Public First, run by the woman who wrote the Tories’ manifesto last year and her husband; the £32 million contract for surgical gowns that was awarded to a pest control firm; the £8.4 million that was paid to Taeg Energy, a dormant company, for hand  sanitiser; the £252 million that went to Ayanda Capital for face masks that are not fit for purpose; and last, but by no means least, the contract for chemical and biological protection suits that was awarded to a digital marketing company—and so on, and so on. Can we debate the awarding of those contracts?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is one of the great virtues of our nation: we were able to act quickly, and it was right that contracts were awarded without tendering in an emergency to ensure that the necessary equipment, supplies and advice were provided. It is equally right that those decisions are held to account within this House. We have such an honest and un-corrupt country because of our free press and our outspoken House of Commons.
I cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate in Government time, but there are Adjournment debates and Backbench Business debates. If anyone, at any time, has evidence of wrongdoing, it is their duty to bring it to the Floor of the House so that it may be investigated. It is their duty to use every means at their disposal, including written questions, oral questions, asking me—quite rightly—for a debate and asking the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for a debate. That is how we have ensured that our country has been so honest and so un-corrupt.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: Buckingham’s strong Conservative unitary council works closely with our local enterprise partnership, our business organisation—Bucks Business First—and our local healthcare trust. This presents a great opportunity to act as a pathfinder for greater local devolution. Our significant assets include Pinewood Studios, three enterprise zones and our leading space and motor sport industries. We also have, sadly, areas of deprivation and of course the impending lay-offs from Heathrow and the aviation industry, which are presenting major challenges. May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on economic recovery and devolution so that we can set out how Buckinghamshire Council, with the right investment combined with devolved funding and more freedoms and flexibility, could form a successful partnership within local government to spearhead the rebuilding of our economy and create the jobs that are so essential to the people who live in Buckinghamshire?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend makes a compelling case for the varied and innovative economy in Buckinghamshire, supported by a well-led local authority. I am sure that many Members would be interested in taking part in a debate on economic recovery, although I think that these subjects could be included in the Opposition day debate next week. Local leadership will be crucial in the recovery from the coronavirus. We will set out our plans for devolution to local areas in the devolution and local recovery White Paper later this year. These plans will ensure that local economies have the investment needed to restart growth and the right regulatory environment to allow businesses to innovate freely and to really drive our recovery. Most of what my right hon. Friend is asking for is actually broadly in the pipeline.

Chris Bryant: I suppose that, as the writer said, the world has always had two kinds of families—the haves and the have-nots—but under coronavirus this has become even more acute. Some of  the poorest in the country have suffered most. Many families who had just started up self-employed businesses or were tradesfolk have suddenly found themselves going from a significant income to absolutely nothing coming in through the door whatsoever. Unfortunately, despite the Government’s attempts to try to help everybody, there are 3 million people in this country who feel very excluded from every single financial provision that there has been. I am sure that the Leader of the House will have had people knocking on his own door in his own constituency crying about losing their finances, losing their homes—losing everything. Can we not please say to those people that, yes, there is still hope that the Government are going to intervene? May we have a debate on that as soon as possible so that we can still put measures in place for those families who really have suffered the most?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This crisis has been very difficult for very many people. The Government have taken enormous steps with the £35 billion in the furlough scheme and the £8.5 billion for nearly 3 million self-employed people. But of course, as a constituency MP, I recognise that people who founded businesses recently have found things very difficult. We need to get the economy to recover. We need to get people getting back to as normal as they possibly can. We want to encourage people to get back to work. We want to try to ensure that we achieve the V-shaped recovery, which is so important. The steps that the Government have taken have been to protect the structures of the economy so that when demand comes back, those structures are there to meet the demand that never really went away but was just shut down because of the crisis. That is what Government policy has been directed towards. We will need to ensure that we foster the economy and help it grow as we come back up that V, but I understand how difficult it is for individual families in particular circumstances.

Fiona Bruce: May we have a debate on the need to maintain local train services during this pandemic? Recent service reductions in my constituency are completely unacceptable. CrossCountry is refusing to stop trains at Congleton station at all, citing social distancing requirements. It put on a longer train, for which the platform is too short. Yet at other stations, this issue is managed by only certain train doors being opened. At Alsager, East Midlands Trains has cancelled almost its entire hourly service during the day, halving the service from Alsager and resulting in a 900-signature local petition within the past few days.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend raises a deeply concerning point. That train-door excuse sounds particularly feeble, even given the British Rail excuses of old. Many people are returning to their offices and the economy continues to open up. Train operators must keep up with demand from passengers. I will take up her concerns with my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, and we will see that they are addressed in full by the Department for Transport.

Bob Blackman: Clearly, it is vital that we start to build the homes that people need, in the right places. However, the release of the White Paper on planning has caused consternation about the  algorithm that will drive the number of homes built in different places and some of the reforms are of concern to local people, local authorities and many across the House. Clearly, we want to get on with building new homes, which need to be in the right places. Will my right hon. Friend therefore urge the Secretary of State to come to the House to make a statement on the planned reforms, so that Members from across the House can have their say before the Government take decisions? Once those decisions are taken, I predict there will be extreme problems in terms of the legislation, unless the Government listen to what Back Benchers have to say.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: All sensible Governments listen to wise Back Benchers, who represent their constituents assiduously. My hon. Friend makes that right point: we need—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) is a Front Bencher, not a Back Bencher, although I listen to her with great care always. We agree on some things, but not, by any means, on everything. As I was saying, we do need to build more homes. We need to build enough homes; we need to build the right homes; and we need to build beautiful homes. We need to build the type of homes that people want. I am afraid that we have not always managed that since the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 came in. Indeed, we have reduced the size of homes and of gardens over the decades since, which is not necessarily what people want. The White Paper is open for consultation until October, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will make their views known in a variety of ways, both inside the Chamber and by direct correspondence.

Stephen Flynn: It is now six months since I stood in this House to raise concerns about the collapsing oil price and the impact that would have on my city of Aberdeen. Since then, the UK Government have been busy: they have failed to deliver a single penny of sector-specific support; they are yet to sign off on an oil and gas sector deal; and they are now refusing to release any of the £12.9 billion-worth of decommissioning tax receipts that appear to have been locked in a vault in Whitehall. I am sure the Leader of the House will share my concern at this complete inaction and will therefore wish to put aside some Government time for a debate on these very important matters.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government have done an enormous amount to support the overall economy, as I have already pointed out, by providing £35 billion for the furlough scheme, £8.5 billion for the self-employed and £15 billion for coronavirus business interruption loans for our small and medium-sized enterprises and large businesses. So a huge amount has been done to help businesses across the country. The price of oil fell into negative territory during the peak of this crisis and has recovered from that quite significantly. Volatility in the oil price is something everybody in the oil industry is well aware of.

Dean Russell: This great place plays a part in the leadership of the country and in imbuing everyone with confidence. During the recent lockdown, we have faced challenges on filling the Benches, although I appreciate the incredible work that Mr Speaker and  his team have done to make this place safe. Given the public health challenges we face in making sure that the Benches can be refilled, might we open this up to the Great British public and use their ideas and innovation so that we can get these Benches full again and get Parliament working as it always should?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The wisdom of the British people knows no bounds and therefore we should always welcome ideas from our constituents. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda is sniffy about his own constituents. I think the wisdom of the people of the United Kingdom knows no bounds. That is why we have achieved so much over the history of this nation. We have been innovative. We have been a nation that has led the world. We really are—

Chris Bryant: We haven’t got a vaccine.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Well, we are leading the world in developing one. Anyway, this is not meant to be a two-way chat between the hon. Member for Rhondda and me. As I said yesterday, I am extraordinarily keen that the House should get back to normal operations, and we have been back since the beginning of June. We did lead by example, but if we can get any good ideas from constituents, they would be extremely welcome. I do hope that it will not be too long before we allow constituents to come back in to listen to us, because we are an open democracy, not a hidden away democracy, and we want to see all the Galleries with people in them as soon as that is safe to do.

Tonia Antoniazzi: On Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care gave the impression to my hon. Friend the member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that the cancer backlog had been reduced by half. I am gravely concerned that the backlog he referred to is just for cancer patients in the system who had their treatment postponed in lockdown. Cancer services are not yet running at 100%, so there is another, far greater backlog of patients awaiting diagnosis continuing to build up. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State to come to the House to clarify his misleading statement and give clarity to the thousands of people living with cancer?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I do not think that anything my right hon. Friend said was misleading. I would like to pay tribute to hospitals that have been going to great lengths to deliver care and treatment, including the Circle Bath Hospital in Peasedown St John in my constituency, which, in conjunction with the Royal United Hospital, took in cancer patients during the height of the pandemic to ensure that they were in a covid-free environment. It did remarkable work, with people moving into new specialisations and being flexible about their working to ensure that cancer patients were treated even at the height of the pandemic.
Some 85,000 people started treatment for cancer from March to June, and urgent referrals are increasing again as people come forward for a cancer check. Anyone who is concerned about possible symptoms should contact their GP. I reiterate the point made in this House by others that the health service is open for routine business and people ought to be going to their doctors if they have concerns about their health.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) was not accusing Secretary of State of misleading the House. I suspect she meant unintentionally misleading.

Pauline Latham: I am really pleased to hear that the Leader of the House, like me, thinks that the Government should be held to account regularly and thoroughly. With the done deal of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office having swallowed up the Department for International Development, there will be no scrutiny of DFID funding, because it will go across many different Departments. It is no good expecting the Foreign Affairs Committee to do its current work plus that new work. Will my right hon. Friend bring before the House the possibility of a cross-party Committee to look at the funding normally spent to ensure that we keep legally to the 0.7% across government?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and for her distinguished service on the International Development Committee, where she made a great contribution. It is sensible that Select Committees follow Departments—that has been the long-standing principle—but there are other ways to scrutinise expenditure. The Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Committee have a role in that, as of course do supply days, when individual areas of expenditure can be examined. The House must determine its own structures of Select Committees, as indeed it does. The convention that they shadow Departments does seem to me a sensible one, but that does not rule out other means of scrutiny.

Toby Perkins: The people of Chesterfield are concerned that HS2 has put in an objection to the recent planning application by the Chesterfield Canal Trust, describing the two projects as currently incompatible. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on governance and decision making at HS2, so that the Government can ensure these two vital projects do not interfere with each other but work constructively together and that we have can have a sense that the Government have a grip on HS2 and a real commitment to it?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There will be various debates on HS2, not least because part of the legislative programme is continuing, but the subject matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is absolutely ideal territory for an Adjournment debate, and I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will pass on a request to Mr Speaker.

Lee Anderson: Does the Leader of the House agree with me and the people of Ashfield that Members of this House should refrain from labelling members of the public and parliamentary colleagues as “fat old racists” simply because they supported Brexit and voted to leave the EU?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that particular jibe was directed at me. I cannot deny that age catches up with me. Seeing my fifth child go to school yesterday made me realise once again how quickly time flies. Fat is a matter of opinion, and some people may think that I am fat. Perhaps Kate Moss thinks I am fat, but other than that, I am not sure that many people would consider me to be  particularly plump. The charge of racism is a deeply offensive one and people should not bandy around that type of abuse in politics because it lowers the whole tone of our politics and makes politics unnecessarily fractious when we actually ought to be reasonably polite to each other. I do not mind a little bit of joshing. I do not mind being called old and fat, but calling people racist is wrong.

Rosie Winterton: We do have a fair number of colleagues still to be called, so I urge colleagues to be fairly brief in their questions and likewise in answers.

Richard Burgon: Our cultural institutions are vital in and of themselves, but they are also an important industry employing many people. Is the Leader of the House aware of the strike action being taken by hard-working members of the Public and Commercial Services Union at Tate galleries in protest against hundreds of compulsory redundancies? Will he grant a debate in Government time on the continued jobs crisis across the whole culture sector resulting from the coronavirus pandemic?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government have provided, I think, £1.5 billion to help the cultural sector, so they have provided a lot of taxpayers’ support. I am sorry to say, though, that, if people are on strike, they are, by definition, not hard-working.

Esther McVey: Can we have a debate on what further measures need to be taken to tackle the blight of Travellers destroying the local environment and driving a coach and horses through the planning laws? My local residents in Mobberley are currently facing that problem at the moment and they would welcome a debate in the House so that we can explore what needs to be done not just in Mobberley and across Cheshire, but across the whole country.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The majority of Travellers do obey the law, but we, as a Government, recognise that unauthorised encampments cause significant distress to local residents with antisocial and criminal behaviour. The Home Office recently consulted on measures to enable the police to tackle unauthorised encampments more effectively and we will publish a response to the consultation in due course. As the then Housing Minister, now Foreign Secretary, said when launching the consultation:
“We must promote a tolerant society,”
in which legal sites are available for travellers,
“but equally the rule of law must be applied to everyone.”

Alison Thewliss: Peter Krykant, who is in long-term recovery from his own substance misuse issues and has worked to support others, has this week launched a van in Glasgow where people can inject drugs under supervision, putting himself at risk of arrest for trying to save lives. The Home Office continues to maintain a frankly untenable position in the face of growing overwhelming world evidence that drug consumption rooms reduce harm and save lives. May we have a debate in Government time on the flawed and outdated Misuse of Drugs Acts? Will the  Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to bring forward a statutory instrument to allow DCRs to go ahead legally in Glasgow?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Home Office has made its position on this very clear. It is not willing to give the exemption that the hon. Lady is asking for. It does not believe that it would be in the best interests of society at large.

Jacob Young: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government will make a statement on their free port policy, specifically in relation to the potential for a free port in Teesside? I am sure he agrees that that would be a fantastic location for our first post-Brexit free port, so that we can maximise the benefits of leaving the EU and bring jobs back to Redcar and Cleveland.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend raises a really sensible and important point. Free ports will be of great importance to many areas of our economy, both coastal and inland, and they will be a centrepiece of our international trade economy in the future. As he rightly says, this is only possible because we are leaving the dead regulatory hand of the European Union’s transition period on 31 December, having already left that organisation on 31 January. The free port consultation has closed and officials are carefully reviewing the hundreds of responses received, probably including one from my hon. Friend. The Government will publish a response in due course and set out their policy of free ports being national hubs for trade, innovation and commerce regenerating communities across the United Kingdom.

Florence Eshalomi: Two weeks ago, I held a Zoom call with around 75 Vauxhall residents living in a new-build development with dangerous cladding. In January, there were given an external wall rating of B1, which is the lowest rating. As a result, the fire authorities mandated a waking watch. That is an expensive cost for many leaseholders and those costs are not covered by the Government. This is making these buildings really dangerous. A number of the residents, whose lives are on hold, have told me that they cannot move and cannot get a mortgage. Essentially, they are trapped in homes that are high risk. Can we please have a debate in Government time about the scandal and the shameful situation of dangerous cladding and the enormous personal impact this is having on leaseholders, not just in Vauxhall but right across the country?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government are introducing legislation improving building standards, including requiring building owners and managers of multi-occupied buildings to consider the risks of cladding and fire doors, and introducing clearer accountability for those responsible for the safety of high-rise buildings. We have also made available a significant amount of taxpayers’ money to remove dangerous cladding. However, the hon. Lady raises the case of a specific building, and I will pass that on to the Secretary of State responsible.

Robbie Moore: This year the Airedale General Hospital in my constituency celebrates its 50th birthday, and I commend all the hard work of the staff there over recent months. However, the hospital  was built originally to have a lifespan of 30 years, it is built solely from aerated concrete and it is the UK’s largest flat-roofed hospital, which brings significant problems. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate to be held in Government time to look at securing our much-loved hospital long into the future?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is right to single out and praise such a distinguished hospital and its staff. The Government are embarking on a significant spending programme for the NHS estate, with a £2.8 billion programme to build six new large hospitals, as well as upgrades and redevelopment of the primary care estate throughout the country. I am concerned that with the largest flat roof of any hospital in the country, this one might have even more leaks than the Government do.

Zarah Sultana: Manufacturing industries in Coventry and across the west midlands have been hit particularly badly by the coronavirus pandemic. If the Government continue with their reckless, one-size-fits-all winding down of the furlough scheme next month, I fear that we will see an unemployment crisis not witnessed in the city in decades, so will the Leader of the House grant Government time to discuss the urgent need for economic support for manufacturing industries in Coventry and how we can take this moment to invest in the green technologies of the future?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government have provided an unprecedented level of support for the economy, but that support cannot continue indefinitely. There has been a crisis, and the response to that has been to maintain the structures of the economy. I have given some of the figures. Let me give some more: £35 billion in more than 1 million bounce-back loans; £11 billion in business grant and £10 billion in business rates relief; £27 billion in VAT deferrals, supporting nearly half a million businesses: £33 billion in the summer economic update supporting the jobs retention bonus; and eat out to help out, which has seen 84,000 firms claim £336 million. What the Government have done is absolutely right to protect the structure of the economy as the V has gone down as demand was stopped by Government order. What the Government and the taxpayer cannot do is continue this forever, because ultimately, as socialists always forget, you run out of other people’s money.

Chris Grayling: I welcome the aviation debate next Thursday. The industry is suffering badly in the current crisis, and the level of job losses is profoundly concerning. It is really important that we get, for example, the transatlantic routes going again. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a proper and detailed ministerial response to the concerns raised?
One of the other sectors that is suffering and unable to reopen because of Government restrictions is the events sector. Many of the businesses in that sector are small and run by individuals who often fell through the cracks in the Government’s support schemes; I represent many in my constituency. Could the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to look again at what can be done to help those small businesses in the months ahead and, in due course, make a statement to the House about the future of the sector and how we can help it?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am in fact taking up these issues for constituents on my own account, so I have a great deal of sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says, and I will ensure that his question is passed on to the Secretary of State.

Douglas Chapman: The Leader of the House will be aware of the 160 job losses at bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis in Falkirk and a further 64 job losses at Greenfold Systems in my constituency. The green bus fund totalling £3 billion that was announced by the Government last February has gone missing. If found, it could be used to save those jobs and support an award-winning industry. Will the Leader of the House commit to a debate in Government time on the green bus fund, in an effort to find the missing billions of promised investment in the bus industry?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In addition to the fund that the hon. Gentleman refers to, the public sector spends around £2 billion supporting road passenger transport. Significant amounts of taxpayers’ money are made available to the sector, and I hope that the company he refers to is able to win some contracts. It is so difficult for businesses in the current circumstances, but it is not for lack of taxpayer money.

Christian Wakeford: The green belt is rightly considered as the lungs around our urban centres. To help protect our green belt and prevent urban sprawl, will the Government make a statement or provide Government time for a debate on how we will seek to “protect and enhance” the green belt, which was our manifesto commitment, and in doing so address the local housing need figures, which are woefully out of date and detrimental to the protection of our green spaces and our commitment to the environment?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend serves his constituents well by bringing this issue to the Floor of the House. He is right to emphasise the support that this Government have for the green belt. The Government have backed the green belt consistently and believe that protections around urban areas are important. However, constraints should not prevent planning for the number of homes that communities need. Authorities should work together to explore how housing can be accommodated in neighbouring areas to increase supply. I speak as somebody who represents an area of which 70% is within the green belt, and that creates undoubted constraints. None the less, the green belt is worth protecting, but we have to build houses too.

Wendy Chamberlain: Last week, figures were released via a freedom of information request on the number of MPs who have taken our “Valuing Everyone” course. Some 159 MPs are yet to take what is supposed to be a compulsory course—nearly one in four—and of that number, 140 sit on the Government Benches. This is totally unacceptable. We are representatives, but we are also employers, and we have a duty of care to our staff, who too often work in a culture of bullying and harassment. Will the Leader of the House make a commitment that, by the end of the year, every single Member of Parliament will have completed the course? Does he agree that all those who have failed to take it by that point should be named?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have taken the course, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and a large number of Members of Parliament, and I encourage others to do so. However, it is not and cannot be compulsory. We cannot create new conditions of membership of this House. Our mandate comes from our voters.

Fay Jones: Williams Coaches is a fourth-generation family firm based in Brecon. It has been going for over 65 years, but when I visited it in the summer, its fleet of iconic cream and brown coaches were standing on the forecourt when they should be ferrying tourists around mid-Wales. As has already been explained, the UK Government’s support package has been exceptional, but the Welsh Government have not passed on similar amounts of funding that have been made available in England. Can we have a debate on what we can do for industries that would be supported in England but are ignored by the Welsh Government, such as those rural businesses in my constituency?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The United Kingdom taxpayer expects the funds it makes available to support industries across the whole of the United Kingdom to be directed in that way. It seems most unreasonable that the Welsh Government are not looking after people in Wales as well as they ought to, but the devolution settlement does give them the responsibility for how those moneys are spent. As I pointed out earlier, £2 billion of taxpayers’ money has been made available. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her championing of this important industry. I have similar businesses in my constituency. They have been finding times very tough, because some tourist travel is where they make the profit so that they can afford to do some of the school transport later in the year.

Kevin Brennan: I was very disappointed with the Leader of the House’s little musical stunt with his mobile phone earlier on; a clear case, I thought, of Britannia waives the rules. [Laughter.] I’m sorry. I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I ask the Leader of the House to use his good offices, as he often does in fairness, to take up the matter of correspondence from Members to the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Treasury Ministers? It is an important right of Members that they can write to Ministers and expect to get a reply, wherever possible, from Ministers. Occasionally, there is an administrative reply and that is acceptable, but at the moment the Treasury is actually indicating to Members that they should not be writing directly to Ministers, but rather via some other hub it has invented. I sense that the Leader of the House would not support that particular kind of practice. May I ask him to look into that and perhaps to report back to the House or write to Members?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am so sorry that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed. I am wounded at that prospect.
On his main point, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Members of Parliament have a right to hold Ministers to account, not officials. It is by absolute exception that officials may respond, usually on immigration matters where an official response is in fact more useful.  It is a routine courtesy. Ministers know that a Privy Counsellor should expect to get a response from a Privy Counsellor, which is very often the Secretary of State in a Department or a Minister of State, and other Members should expect to get a ministerial response. Getting responses, which I think we may all have received, written by officials that bear no relation to the letter that has been sent is not how Government business should be carried on. I encourage Members to write to Ministers and, if they get an unsatisfactory response, to write again and copy me in. I will take this up for any Member who does not get a proper response. We are not doing this for fun. We are not doing it because we want the answers. We are doing it for our constituents and that is where Governments are there to be held to account. Yes, I entirely support what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Henry Smith: I am very grateful for the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of a general debate on aviation to take place next Thursday. If I could catch the Chair’s eye, I would be extremely grateful. Might we have consideration of a statement on the importance of covid-19 testing for inbound passengers not only to increase the confidence of people to travel, particularly by aviation, but for confidence in public health and so that we are not at a competitive disadvantage to countries such as Germany and France, who do test for covid-19?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Health Secretary was on the wireless this morning talking about testing, and I thought what he had to say was extremely important. There are great efforts being made to ensure that more testing is available and that faster—immediate—testing is available.
As I understand it, though I will bear correction, we cannot be certain that somebody who is tested at 9 o’clock in the morning will not have developed symptoms by 9 o’clock the following morning, and the tests are not predictive of somebody who is not yet showing symptoms. That is the risk with testing people at airports: the symptoms may develop later. The testing is improving. I think half a billion pounds is being spent by the Government on behalf of taxpayers in improving testing, so this may improve, and my hon. Friend makes a very good point, but I am afraid that we are not there yet.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 2 September.)

Point of Order

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, I chair the Standards and Privileges Committees. We have seven lay members on the Committee on Standards, but we have had a gap of two for the last few months. As I understand it, the House of Commons Commission has approved two names. I was really hopeful that we would be able to have them on the Order Paper for Monday so that the new members would be able to join the Committee—we have a lot of work to do this autumn—on Tuesday.
I also wonder where we have got to with the independent expert panel. The Commission said that that would be appointed by September. There are cases waiting. This is a really important part of the work that the House does; it is about making sure that there is confidence in the standards system. I just wonder whether we are going to have the independent expert panel up and running soon to deal with sexual harassment and bullying cases.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I know that both matters are going ahead as quickly as possible, but I will certainly make further inquiries as to when exactly the announcements may be made and come back to him, whether personally or in writing. We will certainly take it away. There are three members of the Commission here, so they will have heard his representations.
The House is suspended for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

NON-DOMESTIC RATING (PUBLIC LAVATORIES) BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s Recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mr Simon Clarke.)

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Considered in Committee
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

Rosie Winterton: I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk at the Table’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.

Clause 1 - Relief from non-domestic rates for public lavatories

Kate Hollern: I beg to move amendment 1, line 6, after “day,” insert
“the hereditament is a publicly-owned library or community centre or a local authority property that is free of charge to enter and contains a public lavatory that is free of charge for anyone to use, or”.
This amendment would extend the rate relief to publicly-owned libraries and community centres, and local authority properties, which are free to enter and which contain public lavatories that are free to use.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, page 1, line 7, after “lavatories”, insert
“which are free of charge for anyone to use”.
This amendment would confine the rate relief to public lavatories that are free of charge to use.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 8, after “zero”, insert
“; and where, on a chargeable day, the hereditament consists partly of public lavatories, the chargeable amount for the chargeable day of the public lavatories shall be separately calculated and the chargeable amount for the chargeable day of the hereditament shall be reduced by the amount calculated in respect of those public lavatories.”This amendment would give rate relief to premises that consist partly of public lavatories according to the proportion of the premises occupied by those lavatories.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.
New clause 1—Assessment of the impact of Act on provision of public lavatories—
“The Secretary of State must within one year of Royal Assent conduct and publish an assessment of the impact of this Act on the provision of public lavatories.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of the Act on provision of public lavatories.

Kate Hollern: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) for seeing the Bill through Second Reading with such enthusiasm, and I thank the Clerk of Bills, whose support has been, and continues to be, invaluable.
Public loos have been an integral part of our local communities for more than 150 years, in green spaces and on high streets and thoroughfares. In 1851, London’s Hyde Park welcomed more than three quarters of a million people to the Great Exhibition. The park gave organisers the space to absorb the vast numbers, but visitors presented a public health challenge, and so, in Victorian England, public conveniences as we know them were born. Several years later, in 1858, the man charged with supplying the loos at the Great Exhibition, George Jennings, wrote to the commissioner of sewers offering to set up public conveniences across the City of London.
Back then, conveniences were the preserve of men, but thankfully we have come a long way since then. However, anyone who has ever needed a toilet in public will know that public conveniences are no longer convenient, since there are simply not enough of them. The role of public loos in improving hygiene and health is more important now than ever, given the importance of maintaining high hygiene standards and access to appropriate toilet and hand-washing facilities in keeping covid-19 at bay.
Everyone needs to use the loo, which is a human right under the United Nations sustainable development goals. Women and girls in particular need somewhere to change their sanitary products; people with certain disabilities require accessible toilets, or more frequent use; while parents need to change young children. People who work outside, and homeless people who are now being turfed out of emergency accommodation and back on to the streets, also need somewhere to use the loo. Not only is the lack of loos a public health crisis waiting to happen, but the lack of loos on our high streets, in green spaces and elsewhere is a deterrent to participating in public life for those of us who want to visit our cities, towns and attractions. Some call this a “urinary leash”, with people not feeling comfortable leaving their homes at the thought of being caught wanting in public and with no access to a loo.
Of course, closing public loos has not stopped people needing them; it has just created additional barriers to access for those who need them most. According to the Royal Society for Public Health, the treatment of natural bodily functions as something altogether taboo has proved the touchpaper for ignoring public loos for what they really are—a vital public health resource. The lack of attention paid to public toilets, if you will indulge me, Dame Rosie, is quite frankly potty.
As a constructive Opposition, we on these Benches broadly support the Bill, as we have consistently made clear, since it helps address some of the problems in financing the upkeep of public lavatories. We will not stand in its way or push the amendments to a vote.
However, in many respects the Bill is no more about loos than it is about local government funding—or the lack of it: the fact that it has been brought before the House is a reflection of the need to prop up council finances. After a decade of austerity, councils simply do not have the cash to run public loos, which are estimated to cost between £15,000 and £60,000 each year just to maintain.
Since 2010, public loos have closed at an alarming rate, with over 700 council-run loos closing in the following eight years. Although I appreciate that the  Bill came before the House prior to the pandemic, it is curious that the Government have not extended its reach at a time when they are encouraging everyone to get out more. There is nothing in the Bill that would help struggling councils restore or provide additional cleaning and staffing during this crisis, nor does the Bill redress the longer-term damage that the lack of public toilet provision has done over the past decade.
I now move beyond the narrow focus of the Bill; I have already placed my concerns on the record. Although the Bill is important, it is curious that this matter has been prioritised rather than other urgent needs. The renter’s rights Bill promised in the Queen’s Speech is just one example of legislation that the Government could and should have brought forward. Now that we are here, however, I share the ambition of Members on the Conservative Benches to widen access to public lavatories, and I appreciate that the Bill intends to do that. Given that it is before us, we have tabled three amendments and a new clause, which have been grouped. I hope they are taken in the constructive manner intended.
First, I would like to see the Bill extended to provide relief to publicly owned libraries and community centres as well as local authority town halls, which are free for anyone to enter and contain public lavatories that are free for anyone to use. Widening access should be our overriding priority. As the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), the Minister for rough sleeping and housing, made clear on Second Reading, we must support facilities that exist where there are unlikely to be other publicly available toilets or where removing additional costs of business rates could make a real difference to their ability to stay open. That is why I have introduced one of my amendments.
Community centres, libraries and town halls are often conveniently located at the heart of our communities. In my constituency of Blackburn, there are eight community centres, four libraries and three town halls, which cost the council about £400,000 over the course of a financial year. If each of those premises provided a public lavatory, up to an additional 15 loos would be available to the public. The point is that we do not have to build new loos to widen access; we just have to make existing loos more accessible.
Secondly, in return for providing a free-to-use public convenience, each library, community centre and town hall should be eligible for relief equivalent to the rateable value of their public toilets. That would ease the crippling burden on councils, and that money could be better spent on services our communities desperately need. The money saved could pay towards an additional refuse collector or social worker; it could support a food bank or a family fleeing domestic violence.
Thirdly, we want to do away with a fee to pee. Stand- alone public loos that charge a fee should not be eligible for rate relief; that is not a good way of spending taxpayers’ money. Instead, we propose that owners of fee-charging loos are afforded this choice: either receive relief or continue to charge. They should not be able to do both.
Fee-charging toilets are often privately owned, and fee-charging private toilet facilities in shops, cafés, bars and restaurants have to some degree filled the gap in provision over the past 10 years. The pandemic, however, has exposed the gaping hole in free-to-use public toilets, because a large number of premises with toilet facilities have closed their doors, and people now simply do not carry cash, as shops insist on card payments.
Fourthly, we believe that the Government should publish a report about the impact of the Bill on provision of public lavatories. Throughout the Bill’s passage, it has become apparent that we simply do not have accurate and timely data on how many public loos there are, where they are and how accessible they are; whether they meet the specific needs of parents with young children, people with relevant illnesses or disabilities, women and girls and older people; whether they charge, and who is responsible for maintaining them. It is outside the scope of the Bill and therefore not formally tabled, but we have also asked the Government to consider carrying out an equality impact assessment to assess the decline of public loos.
To summarise, the Bill does provide some relief, so the Opposition will be supporting it. Should the Government reject the amendments that we propose, we would welcome a commitment from the Government to take them away, in the spirit of cross-party working, for consideration in the Lords or outside the Bill process. I remain concerned that in its current form the Bill, though welcome, does not sufficiently remedy the gaps in loo provision. It does not take into account the unprecedented nature of the challenge facing local authorities, nor does it redress the damage done over the last decade.
I believe that the amendments that we have tabled will make the Bill more effective.

Duncan Baker: Bills such as the one before us today may not always be the most high-profile, or garner the most attention, but they make a real difference in our communities up and down the land. Those of us who have “come up through the ranks” by sitting on local councils—in my case Holt Town Council, where I was a rather young-looking mayor in my time—know, from debates, about the annual bone of contention that the running costs of the town’s public loos have become. I am sure that state of affairs is commonplace around the country. But public lavatories are a lifeline. They must be protected, and I warmly commend the Bill for making a difference and doing good in local communities. I am glad that the Opposition do not intend to press amendment 2, because it is important that all loos should be eligible for 100% rates relief, to help all our communities.
Local councils and communities are facing ever-growing pressures and the opportunity to save some public money and shut loos is all too tempting. The Bill will go a long way towards removing a cost and preserving those valuable assets in many of our towns and villages. In my view, access to a lavatory is not just a nicety; it is a fundamental, basic human right.
In North Norfolk, we discovered just how important the public lavatories were when the pandemic set in. My mailbag was full of letters from people in uproar at not being able to use lavatories when they visited the coastal region. That led to all manner of issues; even bus drivers, taxi drivers and delivery drivers could not use those facilities, vital as they were. In coastal communities, where footfall is high owing to the number of our tourist visitors, where there is an ageing demographic and where there are many people with disabilities, lavatories are not just nice to have—they are a basic necessity.
The Bill, for my North Norfolk District Council, will result in a very welcome saving of approximately £80,000 per annum, which is a lifeline for those councils recovering  from covid-19. We have one of the most generous provisions in the country: 39 public conveniences, with annual running costs of around £700,000. Those facilities are a vital part of the visitor economy and the Government’s exempting them from business rates is a welcome saving for the authority—part of the package of measures that has been put in place.
Many of my constituents know that I have spent the summer touring my home, mainly along those coastal areas and villages, and can vouch with some first-hand experience that we have the finest public conveniences in the country. There can be few better places in North Norfolk than Cromer’s public lavatories, found on the pier or at the town’s Deep History Coast discovery centre. Alternatively, for those caught short in Blakeney, the Blakeney harbour toilets take some beating for their outstanding location. For those who want something a little different, however, why not take a trip to Walcott seafront to see the new beach and loos, refurbished as part of a £19 million sand-scaping scheme that has delivered a new beach and protected the community?
Before I end, I cannot leave out the work of our parish councils either, especially one of the crown jewels of the North Norfolk coast: Cley next the Sea. The parish council has recently opened its very own public loo, named the Curloo—ornithologists present will understand why the Curloo is so aptly named on my coast. The inspiration for the initiative came from the outstanding parish chair, Dr Victoria Holliday, who led the fundraising project to raise £36,000 in donations to build this invaluable amenity.
There is no greater example of the importance of helping our communities to retain or lower the cost of their public lavatories than Cley Parish Council’s work when Dr Holliday realised that visitors were bypassing the village because those with certain conditions were not coming into the village because of the lack of facilities. Using local trades, the council raised the money to build its very own Curloo. The Bill may be a lifeline for them in saving rates and safeguarding their facilities. The council in Cley can now safely say it will have to fund a little less to have a pee in Cley next the Sea.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Richard Holden: I will try to be brief, although I must make a declaration as co-chair of the all-party group on local democracy, which has been pushing for this legislation for some time.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who have worked on this with me. I would also like to pick up on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who recognised the great work that his parish councils are doing to keep their public loos going, and to recognise some of my own, some of which I also used on my summer surgery tour this year, in Rookhope, which is run by Stanhope Parish Council and Durham County Council, and in Wolsingham, run by the parish council there. The latter council is one of the reasons why I have been such an active campaigner on this issue, because it is paying about 2% of its annual budget on the rates for the public loos, so this relief today will make a major contribution.
I want to pick up on a couple of the Opposition’s amendments. I am glad they have withdrawn amendment 1, which would have extended the scope of the Bill, and amendment 2, which would have limited it, as they were somewhat contradictory. Amendment 3 would add a level of complexity for much larger councils and is unnecessary at this stage, although it will be well worth considering the issues it raises for inclusion in future legislation.

Simon Clarke: Today’s debate has raised some interesting and valid points that help us to understand how the provisions of the Bill will operate. But before I get to the detail of the amendments, let me first remind the Committee of the purpose of the Bill.
As has been discussed, the importance of public lavatories to our communities and economy is recognised by local and central Government alike. In particular, we recognise, especially at this time, the need for access to high-quality facilities to maintain high standards of public hygiene. More broadly, good toilet provision helps the high street and supports the independence of people who rely on those facilities. This small but important measure supports the Government’s strategy to open up our economy and society as we recover from coronavirus and delivers on the Budget 2020 commitment to provide a mandatory business rates relief for public lavatories.
As Members would expect, the Bill has been welcomed by councils that operate public lavatories, as well as by the public who use them. It will ensure that eligible public lavatories, both privately and publicly run, will receive a 100% reduction in their business rates. Crucially, in cutting the costs of public lavatories, particularly in cases in which rates bills make up a significant proportion of their running costs, the Bill will help to keep these vital facilities open.
To ensure that both local authority and privately run facilities receive support to respond to the current pressures, the Bill contains provisions for it to apply with retrospective effect from 1 April 2020. That means that the relief will be backdated to the start of the current financial year. By making the relief mandatory, the full cost of the measure will be met by central Government. Authorities in England will be fully compensated for awarding the relief through the usual grant process. Business rates are, of course, a devolved matter; nevertheless, I am pleased to say that, with the consent of the Welsh Government, the Bill will apply to both England and Wales.
The legislation is needed because all non-domestic properties, publicly or privately owned, are liable for business rates unless they have been specifically exempted from the liability. Public lavatories are not currently excluded from the rates. Although a non-statutory discretionary relief could provide support for privately owned public lavatories, primary legislation is needed to allow local authorities to award relief to the toilets that they run, because legislation currently prevents them from awarding discretionary relief to themselves. I hope the Committee will agree that the Bill is a positive and important measure that will provide critical support to those who run public lavatories.
Let me turn to the amendments, which focus on the scope of the relief. They explore matters such as whether the relief should be awarded to other properties used for wider purposes and whether it should be used to encourage free-to-use public toilets. I appreciate the points made today by the Opposition, and we are taking other measures to help local facilities with their rates bill, but in general terms, as I will explain, I do not believe we should depart from the clear and simple terms of the Bill.
Amendment 1 would extend the scope of the mandatory 100% relief to include publicly owned libraries and community centres and all local authority properties that contain free-to-use public lavatories. The Government’s view is that it is right that public bodies should, like other ratepayers, pay rates on the properties they occupy. As I have set out, legislation therefore restricts local authorities from granting discretionary rate relief on the properties that they occupy. The cost of the Bill in England is estimated to be around £6 million; however, the amendment would significantly increase that. To give an example, to extend the support to public libraries alone would see a tenfold increase in the gross cost of the measure, to around £60 million.
The steps that we are taking to introduce 100% relief for public lavatories recognise the particular importance of the facilities, both in public health terms and to help to ensure that people are able to access and use public spaces. The Government’s policy aim, and the purpose of clause 1, is to target the relief so as best to support the provision of public lavatories. In particular, we want to support facilities that exist where there are unlikely to be any other publicly available toilets, or where removing the additional costs of business rates could make a real difference to the ability of councils or others to keep the facilities open.
All that is not to say that we do not recognise that this is a difficult time for local government—we do. The Government understand the impact of covid on the sector and have therefore made £3.7 billion-worth of funding available to support councils during the pandemic. That is un-ring-fenced precisely because we know that local authorities are best placed to determine how to respond to pressures in their local areas. Additionally, we have promised a new scheme to support councils for lost income by providing for council and business rates tax deficits to be repaid over three years instead of one. Furthermore, we have enabled councils to defer £2.6 billion in business rates payments to central Government.
Amendment 2 would limit the relief to apply only to those public lavatories that are free to use, while amendment 3 would apportion relief to public lavatories where they are part of larger hereditaments as a proportion of the overall assessment of the wider property. I understand the Opposition’s concerns about free-to-use public toilets; nevertheless, the purpose of the Bill is to provide targeted support for separately assessed public lavatories—recognising the particular circumstances that they face—and not to draw a distinction between those that charge and those that do not. I see no harm whatsoever in charging a modest fee to support the service and maintenance of public toilets, and neither do I consider that the public think that unacceptable. I therefore do not agree that the relief should exclude those who charge a fee to use facilities. Such a distinction would add complexity and uncertainty to the wider legislation and risk continuing to impose this tax burden on some stand-alone facilities, which might otherwise close.
On amendment 3, Members are correct in saying that publicly available toilets in properties such as shopping malls will, where they are assessed as part of a larger property, fall outside the scope of the Bill. However, unlike stand-alone toilets, we have not seen evidence to suggest that those toilet facilities are specifically at risk of closure due to the business rates bill. Furthermore, the assessment and administration of such an apportionment, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) alluded to, would, in practice, be much more complex and, I fear, far out of line with the level of the resulting rate relief.
Currently, lavatories inside other buildings are not typically given a rateable value in their own right within the wider valuation. Instead, the overall value adopted for the shop or library, for example, merely reflects the presence of a toilet. To meet the aim of the amendment, it would therefore be necessary for the Valuation Office Agency to revalue every eligible building, to reassess its overall value and the value of the lavatory specifically as part of that. That would not only be an artificial and notional exercise for the VOA, but many thousands of properties would potentially need to be reassessed, which would divert resources away from other VOA priorities, such as the operation of the business rates appeals system and the 2023 revaluation. I fear that the amendment would fail to meet the objectives of the policy to target support where it is most needed and would not represent good value for the taxpayer. As I have explained, we have more generally provided a great deal of wider support to local government and ratepayers during the current crisis.
Finally, new clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish an assessment of the impact of this Bill on the provision of public lavatories one year after enactment. I understand that Members will be interested to know what difference this legislation has made over the coming years, particularly given the significant public interest in this issue. I would like to reassure the Committee that the Government keep under review the effectiveness of all the business rates reliefs that we provide. As I have set out, the aim of the Bill is to provide targeted support to those separately assessed toilets to help local authorities keep them open.
Local authorities are ultimately responsible for the provision of public lavatories in their area, and the decision to open or close facilities must rest with them. Nevertheless, the Government strongly encourage councils to keep these facilities open. I recognise the good work of many of our local authorities, some of which we have heard reference to today, in setting up their own community toilet schemes. For example, the London Borough of Kingston has increased provision in its area.
The requirement for there to be a review only one year after the relief comes into force probably would not assist the long-term implementation of the policy. It would not provide enough time to see the true impact of the changes on planning decisions by local authorities or by private companies. As this is a matter for local plans and potentially construction work, it will be many years before the full effect is felt. In the short term, it will be next to impossible to attribute changes in the number of lavatories to this relief or, indeed, to other changes. For example, if more lavatories open, it could be due to the relief, or it could be due to a wider tourism boom in coastal areas such as North Norfolk. Simply  looking at changes in the number of lavatories will therefore not necessarily be a good measure of the impact of the relief. Nevertheless, I assure the Committee that we will continue to keep all reliefs, not just this one, under review, together with my colleagues in the Treasury, as part of its wider review of business rates.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) for not pressing her amendments to a vote. This is a good Bill that will make a real difference to the lives of many people, and I commend it to the House.

Kate Hollern: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading

Simon Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Government know how important good lavatory provision is for all of us at work, in our leisure time or as we shop, and this Bill delivers on the commitment made by the Government at Budget to establish a 100% mandatory business rate relief for eligible public lavatories.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Members on both sides of the House for their positive contributions, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for North West Durham. This Bill has genuine cross-party support, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn for her constructive comments. I am also grateful to those who, on Second Reading, fully supported this measure, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who have both worked tirelessly in support of getting this measure on to the statute book. This represents mission accomplished. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate the welcome support offered to the Bill’s passage from the National Association of Local Councils and the British Toilet Association, as well as local authorities, including town and parish councils up and down our country, who have worked so hard to open their facilities to the public and to support their local communities.
During the passage of the Bill, a number of questions and points have been raised that it may be helpful for me to address briefly. I can confirm that local authorities  will be fully compensated by central Government for awarding the relief, including those lavatories run by parish and town councils. Subject to enactment of the Bill, the relief will apply with effect from 1 April this year, meaning that eligible properties will receive a backdated discount, ensuring that they will pay nothing in the current financial year and onwards. In line with other reliefs, local authorities will be responsible for determining eligibility within the scope of the legislation and will award support to those lavatories that they consider to qualify for support.
It is also worth noting that in late July, the Government published our response to the Changing Places consultation and announced changes to building regulation guidance to mandate the provision of Changing Places toilets for the most severely disabled in many new public buildings. That is the right thing to have done and it is something that we can all be proud of across the House.
This Bill is a positive measure, which has been widely welcomed by those who run public lavatories, and provides support to help keep these facilities open. I commend it to the House.

Kate Hollern: I will keep this brief, as I am sure the Minister will be pleased to hear. It is disappointing that the Government have rejected our amendments, which, for reasons already outlined, we believe would have further widened public access to loos. The Minister will be aware that there are strong feelings in both Houses about the number, quality and accessibility of public loos, and the Lords will return to the matters that we have raised in our amendments.
The Bill as it stands is a welcome attempt to cover some of the costs associated with public lavatories, and for that reason, we will support it. The relief that the Bill provides does not cover all the costs of maintaining public loos, given the enhanced cleaning regimes that councils and other loo providers have put in place to tackle covid.
I sincerely hope that introducing the Bill at this time is a signal from the Government that they are committed to supporting councils, many of which have run public toilets during this crisis. If the Government are serious about saving public loos, they should also consider our request to carry out an equality impact assessment. Doing so would be a tangible demonstration that the Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

South China Sea: Freedom of Navigation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

Andrew Bowie: I can see that the Minister is flushed with success at the passing of that Bill, and I am grateful to the House for allowing me so much time this afternoon to speak on an issue of such importance.
Over the past six months, the focus of this Government, and, indeed, of most Governments the world over, has rightly been on fighting and defeating coronavirus—defeating this killer disease and dealing with the pandemic and the economic fallout from our necessary actions to limit the spread and to save lives. It is possibly for this reason that colleagues have been approaching me with puzzled looks today, asking me why I have chosen this issue, with so much else going on, to raise in the House this afternoon. I am raising it because I believe that this country has a right and, indeed, a duty to uphold international law and an obligation to protect the rules-based international order—a system that we see under attack and under threat like never before, be it by the Russian state poisoning opponents on British soil, such as we saw in Salisbury in 2018, or now in the South China sea, for our values and the values of the free world are very much under threat on those waters. This House should be under no doubt that the Chinese Communist party has used the cover of the global pandemic to step up its struggle for hegemony in the South China sea.
The Chinese “Blue Sea 2020” campaign continues apace, as does the growth of the naval capability of the people’s liberation army. Between 2014 and 2018, China launched more submarines, warships, amphibious vessels and auxiliaries than the total number of ships currently serving in the individual navies of Germany, India, Spain and the United Kingdom. At 335 vessels, the PLA’s fleet outnumbers even that of the United States navy, which commands 296 vessels, a number of ships that is probably looked on with envy by our admirals.
The size of the Chinese fleet and its rate of growth should be a clear warning of China’s determination to become a maritime superpower. Only last week, the PLA launched a series of medium-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear missiles considerable distances into the South China sea. Those launches followed Chinese live-fire war games in the Taiwan straits, another performative demonstration of China’s strategic dominance and its claim to sovereignty over these waters.
Despite the implication in its name, the South China sea is not simply the nautical area below southern China, nor does the term simply describe China’s southern territorial waters. The waters in question stretch from Malaysia to the Philippines, and from Vietnam to the edge of Indonesia. The South China sea encompasses an entire region of more than 1,400,000 square miles, which is more than 14 times the size of the United Kingdom. The People’s Republic of China lays claim to almost all of it, including large chunks of what are internationally agreed as the exclusive economic zones of Vietnam, Brunei and the Philippines.
China’s claim in the region is encircled by a demarcation line, dubbed the “nine-dash line”, although the Chinese Communist party added an unprecedented 10th dash in 2013 to encircle the entirety of the nation of Taiwan.  However, an arbitration case brought by the Philippines, under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, at the international Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled in 2016 that China had no legal right to the territory in the nine-dash line, having never historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or the resources contained within it. That is important. Freedom of navigation on the high seas is important. It is one of the pillars of the law of the sea and has been for centuries, since 1609, in fact, when Hugo Grotius published “Mare Liberum” or “The Freedom of the Seas”, and it is at the origins of modern international law. The argument he made in 1609 that the sea is a fundamental avenue for communication and co-operation among states is as relevant today as it was in the 17th century. Freedom of navigation is also vital for economic growth. Without freedom to navigate, fish and explore, there is no free trade. That is why we must stand firm, and it is why I am raising this issue on the Floor of the House this afternoon.
The 2016 ruling, made in a Court that the UK Government recognise, under a UN convention that the UK is party to and has ratified, was supported as legitimate by the overwhelming majority of the international community, including our European friends and allies, and the US, yet China has outright rejected the ruling and has escalated its activities in the region, in clear defiance of international law. Conveniently, for the Chinese Communist party, the nine-dash line—now the 10-dash line—coincides with huge proven oil and gas reserves, and about a third of the world’s marine diversity. China has not, as was ruled by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, historically exercised control over these waters, nor does it have the settled territory in the area necessary to make these sorts of territorial claims, yet the Chinese Communist party has sought to circumvent those inconvenient facts by dumping millions of tonnes of cubic metres of sand on fragile coral reefs, creating a great wall of sand, a chain of artificial islands that China intends to use to manufacture the basis of a territorial claim. The installation of military bases on these islands will then be used to enforce that claim. As we sit here discussing the issue, that is taking place.
It is easy to see why China wants to control these waters. In addition to the huge oil reserves that lie under the seabed, one third of global shipping passes through the South China sea, including a great share of Chinese exports. The value of trade passing through the sea is put at more than $3 trillion a year. The region is also home to huge fish stocks, which are crucial to ensuring food stability and to the livelihoods of millions of people in neighbouring countries. In April, the PLA navy rammed a Vietnamese fishing vessel operating in contested waters, sinking it. The PLA denies that and instead alleges that the Vietnamese vessel rammed the much larger Chinese ship, for reasons seemingly unclear to anyone. In May 2014, the Chinese coastguard made the same claim of a similar collision, alleging that it had been attacked by a Vietnamese fishing boat—uncharacteristic belligerence for a light non-military vessel. That was until video evidence emerged of the Chinese vessel deliberately ramming the Vietnamese boat. As a Member of Parliament representing a seat in the north-east of Scotland, where fishing is a major historic industry, it is only too easy to imagine the economic damage and hardship that would come from being prevented from fishing in waters believed to be  free to navigate and fish on. We heard in a heated debate in this House only two days ago how passionately people in our fishing communities feel about having access to waters to fish and the economic importance for industry and the communities it supports. Off the coast of Vietnam, we are seeing the wholesale seizure of livelihoods of Vietnamese fishermen.
It is impossible to represent the community surrounding Aberdeen without understanding the critical importance of the oil and gas sector and what it can do for a nation’s economy. China’s attempts to frustrate the development of offshore oil and gas facilities developed by neighbouring nations is not only unfair to the nations in whose exclusive economic zones those resources lie but a threat to global energy security. Every single day, over 1.6 million barrels of oil are shipped through the Malacca straits. The continued ability and freedom to do so and the freedom of smaller nations around the South China sea to utilise their marine resources without threat or hindrance is vital.
With the renewed rejection in July by both America and Australia of China’s territorial and maritime claims in the South China sea, it is time that a truly global Britain steps up to the plate and meets this unwarranted and illegal encroachment with renewed assertiveness. It was very welcome in 2018 to see HMS Albion en route to Vietnam demonstrate our determination to uphold international law by sailing through the legally defined international waters around the Paracel Islands, but the reaction from China, though predictable, was depressing, claiming that we had infringed China’s sovereignty. China is a great country and the Chinese people are great people. We want to work with them, co-operate and learn as we jointly confront the biggest issues of our time—climate change, covid and developing emerging economies—but we must stand firm and defend international law and the rules-based order.
We must open our eyes to the glaringly obvious, as we, under the banner of the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development office, seek to forge a new and positive role for Britain on the world stage, supporting our friends and allies in upholding the international rules-based order. We must recognise that it is our responsibility to ensure that global trade is able to continue unimpeded and support the rights of smaller nations. As the Government conduct their integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign affairs, I urge them to pay attention to what is happening on the South China sea and to make good on their promise to improve the capability of our world-class armed forces by making investment in the Royal Navy a priority. While the national shipbuilding strategy was a welcome first step in renewing the Royal Navy, progress has been slow. We desperately need more frigates, destroyers and, indeed, sailors if we are to support our allies and commit ourselves to defending freedom of navigation.
I also urge the Government to plan for a multinational fleet to sail with HMS Queen Elizabeth when it cruises into the Indo-Pacific and to pursue an extended role in the Pacific for this country. If I may make one further ask of the Government, it would be that work starts immediately on devising and operationalising an enhanced freedom of navigation policy to be systematically applied and tested whenever regional powers seek to undermine the law of the sea or other international agreements.
We have a proud history in the United Kingdom of standing up as a beacon of democracy, a bastion of freedom and a defender of rights, free trade and the rules-based order. It is essential that we step up to the plate once again, work with our allies in the region and show that it does not matter whether these values are under threat on our own shores, in Europe or on the other side of the world; there is nowhere this country will not go to show our resolve to defend and maintain international law and freedom. I believe this is global Britain’s moment. We must not let it pass by.

Nigel Adams: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) for bringing this very important debate to the House. Having served his country in the Royal Navy, he understands the importance of upholding maritime law as enshrined in the 1982 United Nations convention on the law of the sea—UNCLOS.
The South China sea dispute is based on conflicting territorial claims, including those between China and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei and the Philippines. All these states are parties to UNCLOS. The UK takes great interest in this dispute, not only as a force for good and a defender of the international rule of law, including UNCLOS, but as a great trading nation whose seaborne exports and imports pass through the South China sea, and as a leader in global security with a range of enduring security interests and many bilateral defence relationships in the region.
In 2013, an arbitral tribunal was constituted under UNCLOS to consider the case brought by the Philippines against China. As my hon. Friend said, in 2016, it set out its findings in the South China sea arbitration, which are binding on both parties. As I said in this House on 30 June, we are
“disturbed by reports of militarisation, coercion and intimidation in the South China sea.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2020; Vol. 678, c. 144.]
In May, officials raised our concerns with the Chinese about recent incidents.
Our position, as a UK Government, on the South China sea is of long standing. We do not take a position on competing sovereignty claims. Our commitment is to international law, particularly to UNCLOS and to freedom of navigation and overflight. We call on all parties to refrain from activity likely to raise tensions, including land reclamation, construction and militarisation, and we urge all parties to exercise restraint and behave responsibly in accordance with their international obligations. Our commitment to upholding UNCLOS is a global matter, and we will continue to raise concerns with other nations where their interpretation of UNCLOS differs from ours. We are committed to working closely with allies and partners to uphold the primacy of UNCLOS in the South China sea.
While previous public statements have addressed aspects of our analysis, the UK has not set out our full legal position on the South China sea in public. Given the importance that we attach to UNCLOS, I will use this opportunity to commit to depositing a paper on the UK’s analysis of the legal issues in the South China sea in the Libraries of both Houses following this debate.
Today, I would like to highlight some aspects of that legal analysis and discuss the status of features, including low-tide elevations, rocks and islands. UNCLOS sets out the rules under which various features can generate maritime zones and the rights associated with them. Such zones include a territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles from the coast, a contiguous zone up to 24 nautical miles, an exclusive economic zone up to 200 nautical miles, and a continental shelf.
Some features in the South China sea are low-tide elevations—naturally formed areas of land surrounded by and above water at low tide but submerged at high tide. On this, UNCLOS is clear. A low-tide elevation sitting outside the territorial sea cannot be the subject of a sovereignty claim. UNCLOS defines rocks as being incapable of sustaining human habitation or an economic life of their own. They are only entitled to a territorial sea and a contiguous zone. Under UNCLOS, islands are entitled to a territorial sea, a contiguous zone, an exclusive economic zone, and a continental shelf. National airspace exists above the territorial sea.
The UK takes a case-by-case approach on the status of any feature, including whether it should be considered an island. Whether a feature is a low-tide elevation, a rock or an island is determined based on its natural capacity without external additions or modifications. Land reclamation cannot change the legal status of a natural feature for the purposes of UNCLOS. It cannot change a low-tide elevation into a rock or a rock into an island. The South China sea arbitration found that the features under consideration were either low-tide elevations or rocks, and therefore they are not entitled to an exclusive economic zone.
I would now like to move to maritime delimitation, or the drawing of baselines. UNCLOS also sets the definitive rules on the drawing of baselines, which are the points from which maritime zones are measured. The best-known Chinese assertion to a maritime zone is the so-called nine-dash line, which encompasses almost all of the South China sea. China has never clearly articulated the basis of the claim. If the claim is based on historic rights to resources within the nine-dash line, it is inconsistent with UNCLOS. The UK objects to any claim that is not founded in UNCLOS.
China has asserted its sovereignty over four groups of features: the Pratas, the Paracel and Spratly islands, and the Macclesfield bank. China has asserted a right to internal waters, a territorial sea, a contiguous zone, an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf based on the so-called offshore archipelago groups. The terms “archipelago” and “archipelagic state” have a specific technical meaning within UNCLOS. There is a special regime for constructing archipelagic baselines around such states, but China is not an archipelagic state. The UK objects to any attempt to approximate the effects of archipelagic baselines around groups of features. This is also inconsistent with UNCLOS. Let me be clear: there is no customary international law basis outside UNCLOS for drawing such baselines. Chinese academics have  referred to UK practice to support China’s attempt to draw straight baselines around groups of features in the South China sea. We reject that. The UK’s approach to straight baselines is based entirely on the provisions of UNCLOS and not a special regime for offshore archipelagos.
Next, I would like to turn to freedom of navigation, to which my hon. Friend referred. The UK is clear that the group of rights generally considered under freedom of navigation, including innocent passage and overflight, applies in the South China sea regardless of respective sovereignty claims. All Government ships, including naval ships, enjoy the right of innocent passage in the territorial sea and freedom of navigation in the contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone under UNCLOS.
As part of the Royal Navy’s persistent presence in the region, five ships have transited the South China sea since April 2018, most recently HMS Enterprise in February. Those deployments involve defence engagement with regional partners, multilateral exercises and maritime surveillance, including support for enforcing UN Security Council resolution sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. They also serve to reinforce our commitment to UNCLOS. Wherever the Royal Navy operates, it does so in full compliance with international laws and norms, and exercises its rights to freedom of navigation, innocent passage and overflight as provided for by UNCLOS. Likewise, the UK calls on all states to ensure that their vessels comply with the rules on safety of navigation in the South China sea.
I would like to turn to the necessity of protecting the marine environment. The tribunal in the South China sea arbitration also considered the obligations of states under UNCLOS to protect and preserve the marine environment. The tribunal found that China had failed in its obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment. China had tolerated and actively supported Chinese fishermen harvesting endangered species and using harmful fishing methods. China’s land reclamation and construction projects have caused irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem. As a global leader in marine conservation and founder of the Global Ocean Alliance, the UK takes the tribunal’s findings in this respect very seriously. We call on all states in the region to comply with their obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment.
I am conscious of the technical nature of some aspects of this matter, but UNCLOS is a critical part of the rules-based international system, which my hon. Friend set out so clearly in his excellent speech. I am incredibly grateful to him for the opportunity to set out the UK Government’s position for the record. As states in the region continue to negotiate a code of conduct for activities in the South China sea, they should have a clear understanding of the legal basis for the UK’s South China sea policy—one that is based wholly on compliance and consistency with UNCLOS.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.